Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 26th October—met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRITS.

For the County of York, East Riding (Howdenshire Division), in the room of Lieut.-Colonel the right hon. FRANCIS STANLEY JACKSON (Manor of Northstead).

For the County of Essex (Chelmsford Division), in the room of Sir HENRY HONYWOOD CURTIS-BENNETT, K.C. (Manor of Northstead).—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL-FILLING PUMPS.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any proceedings have yet been instituted under the Weights and Measures Regulations as affecting petrol-filling pumps?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Regulations under Section 2 of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Act of this year are in process of preparation, but they have not yet been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

NATIONAL LOSS.

Mr. HANNON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to present to the House a statement of the aggregate loss which Great Britain and Northern Ireland has sustained consequent upon the general strike and the coal stoppage since the 1st May in the present year?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now able to give any revised and up-to-
date estimate of the aggregate loss caused by the coal dispute to the trade of the country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The loss in production due to the cessation of work since 1st May by miners and others, and the reduced activity consequent on this increase in unemployment, may be estimated, on the basis of calculation I have used in a previous answer, as amounting to between £250,000,000 and £300,000,000. Losses due to disturbance of trade connections, and to contracts and orders not secured, are not included in this estimate. It would be impossible to estimate these.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position later, if I put a question down, to give a nearer figure of the total amount of loss sustained?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No; I could not give any nearer figure than the figure I have given, because no one can say what contracts have been lost.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the strike of 1921, which only lasted 13 weeks, it was estimated that it would cost the country £500,000,000?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That estimate included a great many other things besides the very limited figure I have given of £250,000,000 to £300,000,000, which is only the direct loss in production.

Colonel APPLIN: May I ask if this loss is not largely due to the intimidation of those who are desirous of working?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

COAL RAISED.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the total amount of coal raised during the period of the coal dispute from ordinary mines and from outcrop workings respectively?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): About 10,500,000 tons of coal have been produced from mines in Great Britain from the beginning of May up to the present time. I do not know what is the total production from outcrop work-
ings during that period, but at the end of July it was estimated to amount to about 50,000 tons a week, and at the end of August 100,000 tons a week.

IMPORTS.

Mr. HANNON: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the quantities of coal imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland since the 1st May in the current year; the quantities of such coal imported at the instance of His Majesty's Government and by private contract at the instance of firms and individuals; and the average price per ton paid for coal imported by His Majesty's Government?

Colonel LANE FOX: Between the 1st May and 30th October approximately 15,400,000 tons of coal arrived at ports in Great Britain. As regards the rest of the question, I do not think that it would be in the public interest to give these particulars at present.

1. Increase in numbers.


Period covered by dispute.
Maximum increase in numbers of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief in areas directed affected by the dispute.
Net increase in the numbers of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief in England and Wales at the same date.


Number.
Percentage.
Number.
Percentage.


1893 (June to November)
2,270
11
25,489
5


1898 (End April to July)
43,751
155
32,200
6


1921 (1st April to 1st July)
464,683
373
647,500
144


1926 (1st May to date)*
1,162,592
337
1,266,095
126


* This estimate covers the period ended 30th October, 1926

2. Increase in cost of relief.

Records showing the cost of relief during the period of the earlier disputes are not available, but it is estimated that, during the dispute in 1921, the cost of outdoor relief in money and kind in the areas directly affected increased by at least £850,000. As compared with the rate of expenditure in April, 1926, the cost of outdoor relief in money and kind was greater, during the period from the beginning of May, 1926, to the end of October, 1926, by, approximately, £5,800,000 in the areas directly affected by the dispute.

Mr. SMILLIE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give comparative statistics of the numbers of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief, and of the cost of such relief as a result of the disputes in the coal mining industry which took place in the years 1893, 1898, 1921 and 1926?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

It is estimated that in the course of the four disputes mentioned the following increases occurred in the numbers of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief and in the cost of such relief. It is impossible to state definitely that these increases were entirely due to the disputes or that they indicate the whole effect of the disputes upon pauperism.

is aware that the Morpeth Board of Guardians last week suspended the distribution of out-relief, and that there is serious hardship in Ashington, the largest mining centre in Northumberland; and whether he will press the Morpeth Guardians to continue the payment of out-relief?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware that these guardians resolved that relief required by miners' families should ordinarily be afforded in an institution, but he is informed that this resolution has been rescinded by them and did not come into operation.

Mr. DUNCAN: Would the same decision apply to other boards of
guardians who have come to a similar decision?

Sir K. WOOD: Obviously, I must have notice of that question.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether the Lichfield Board of Guardians have suspended the payment of relief to miners' wives and children, and, if so, what provision is being made by the board to relieve destitution in its area; and whether he is satisfied that the board is adequately fulfilling its statutory duties?

Sir K. WOOD: The Lichfield Guardiane have decided that relief required by miners' families shall ordinarily be afforded in an institution. My right hon. Friend has no information which would lead him to suppose that the guardians are not fulfilling their statutory duties.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Lichfield Board of Guardians has sufficient indoor accommodation for all the applicants who were previously receiving outdoor relief?

Sir K. WOOD: I have no knowledge of that. We understand that they have fulfilled the duties imposed upon them by Statute.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is more expensive to keep them inside than to supply the relief outside?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether the opportunities for relief are adequate to the needs of the area?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any case where the duties of the guardians have not been properly fulfilled, I will inquire into it.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. LUNN: 60.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been prosecuted under the Emergency Regulations up to the latest date; how many have been convicted; what is the total amount imposed in fines; and the total period of imprisonment imposed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): I gave in the last Debate the
figures up to 16th October, the latest date for which I have a complete return. I propose to call for another return in about a fortnight's time.

Mr. LUNN: If I put down a question in a few days, may I have an answer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly, a full answer.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are there any other cases pending?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: indicated assent.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask for an articulate reply?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not possible, in order to help the negotiations that are going on, to suspend the operation of the Emergency Powers Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. HANNON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have given further consideration to the present position of iron and steel production in Great Britain; and if he is prepared to refer the application for the extension of safeguarding to these industries to a committee, in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) on 26th July, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. HANNON: Does my right hon. Friend really mean to leave the question there? Will nothing be done to give relief to the present condition of the steel industry in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer which the Prime Minister gave.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. WELLS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the
fact that the Joint Film Trade Committee have failed to come to an agreement to make suggestions for the improvement of the British film industry, he will introduce early legislation to encourage the production of British films in keeping with the traditions, the life, and interests of the people of this country, and for the benefit of the Empire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question is at present being considered by the Imperial Conference, and it is not yet possible for me to make any statement of policy.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade generally does not want any legislation of any kind in this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not equally true that the British Empire does want the British films?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir; certainly.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the great problem at the present time is that the producers cannot give exhibitors a guarantee that they will produce attractive films?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are a great many things which may be said on both sides, but I do not think they Dome within the compass of question and answer.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that what we want now is a supply of briquettes with the ex-Kaiser stamped upon them?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT REGULATIONS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in contravention of the clean meat Regulations, meat is being displayed for sale in many parts of London on counters grouped on pavements in front of butchers' shops, and that such meat is not shielded from the street dust; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has been asked to reply to this question. He has no information as to the conditions mentioned. The enforcement of the Regulations in London is in the hands of the borough councils, and if my hon. Friend will give any instances in which it is alleged that the Regulations are being contravened, my right hon. Friend will communicate with the council concerned.

Mr. MARCH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that you want an inspector at every one of the stalls in the streets of London to safeguard this?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SAFETY RAZORS (CONTRACT).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps were taken to ascertain whether the Gillette Safety Razor Company, to which a War Office contract has recently been granted, was a British company; when it became a British company; and whether they ascertained the, proportion of its capital which is held by British nationals?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The company was registered at Somerset House in 1915, and half of its capital is held by British nationals.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the names of the 20 firms from whom tenders for safety razors were called, distinguishing between British and non-British firms?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not the practice to disclose the names of firms invited to tender for Government contracts. In the case of the safety razor contract, tender forms were sent to 22 firms or limited liability companies, all carrying on business in Great Britain. Nine of these tendered, two offering razor and blades made in the United States, six razors and blades made in Great Britain and one (the accepted firm) razors made in Great Britain and blades made in Canada.

Mr. WILSON: May I ask how it is that in his letter upon this subject to a Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman referred to two of these firms being American firms?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot remember the terms of the letter. They were not American firms; they were firms in this country offering razors and blades to be made in America, and on that ground their tenders were refused.

Mr. WILSON: May I ask, further, how it, is that when we are so desirous of promoting British trade we should be asking American firms to tender at all; secondly, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that only two firms who are members of the Sheffield Manufacturers' Association were asked to tender, and the largest and oldest safety razor manufacturers in the country were not asked to tender?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No tender forms were sent to any firms other than British firms. With regard to the last part of the question, whether they were members of the association or not, I do not know, but I have heard the last allegation that the largest firm was not asked to tender, and I have asked to be supplied with the name, because I am told it is unlikely to be so.

Mr. WILSON: May I ask, with reference to the letter to which I referred just now, whether the term "American firm" is incorrect?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have told the hon. Member that I do not remember the exact expression in the letter. It was British firms offering American goods.

Commander BELLAIRS: What is the reason for not mentioning the names of the firms? Is not the strict rule with regard to not mentioning the amounts of the tenders?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe the rule is that the Government Departments do not mention the names of the firms from whom tenders are not accepted.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for a good number of years all the contractors'
names have appeared in the "Labour Gazette" every month, and is that practice to be discontinued?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should have to inquire.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the "Labour Gazette" contains only a list of the successful tenders?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe that is so—that the "Labour Gazette" contains only the names of the accepted contracts.

Colonel ENGLAND: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War how the opinion of the rank and file of the Army was ascertained when it was decided to substitute safety razors for the old-fashioned stropping razor; how much the old razor used to cost the soldier; how long it was expected to last him; and how much it is estimated that the soldier will have to expend each year in the purchase of renewal blades?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Units of all Home Commands were consulted, and there was a general condemnation of the old type of long-handled razor. A free issue of that razor used to be made to each recruit. No definite life was assigned to it, replacement being made by the soldier, when necessary, out of his general kit allowance. The amount which the soldier will spend in the future on replacing the blades of his safety razor must necessarily vary with individual circumstances.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many razor blades will be supplied to the soldier's kit?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The soldier can buy them where he pleases. They are stocked by the Navy, Army and Air Force Canteen, and that will he a very convenient place to make the purchase.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are there any circumstances in the mind of the War Office other than the stiffness of a particular soldier's beard?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member has put it more bluntly.

Mr. THURTLE: In the event of a patriotic soldier refusing to shave himself by means of an American blade, is any action to be taken against him?

SCHOOLMISTRESSES (MARRIAGE CONDITIONS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the revised conditions of service of Army schoolmistresses recently issued forbids Army schoolmistresses to marry a soldier below the rank of sergeant?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: An Army schoolmistress is not forbidden to marry a soldier below the rank of sergeant. If she marries she is liable to be compulsorily retired, but it has been customary not to enforce retirement if she marries a soldier of the rank of sergeant or over. This rule is not a new one; it is over 20 years old.

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, DISCHARGED PRIVATE.

Mr. BARKER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that George Price, 8, Greenfield Terrace, New-bridge, Monmouthshire, late private, No. 390267, South Wales Borderers, C Company, Second Battalion, was discharged on 25th November, 1921; that he applied to the Army Pay Office, Shrewsbury, in January, 1922, for a statement of his accounts; that he was told to wait; and. that he has applied frequently since for a statement but has not received it; and will he see that this ex-service man is supplied with a statement of his accounts and paid any moneys that may be due to him?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): There is no record that Mr. Price has made applications for a statement of his accounts. I regret that it is not now possible to supply such a statement since the relevant pay documents in possession of the paymaster have been destroyed, after having been retained for the period prescribed by the Public Record Office Act. But since it is the practice to keep a record for six years if any credit balance is still due to an ex-soldier, and there is no such record in the case of Mr. Price, there is no reason to believe that any money is due to him from Army Funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

CONVICTION (GEORGE MACK).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware
of the facts connected with the conviction of George Mack, at the Selkirk Sheriff Court, in July of this year; and whether he will consider this case with a view to reducing the sentence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have inquired into this case, but, after careful consideration, find no sufficient ground for advising any interference with the sentence.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any churches or manses have been handed over to the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland; and, if so, how many?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand, however, that in several cases arrangements for transfer have been so far completed that petitions have been presented to the Sheriff for the issue of the statutory certificate that the heritors' obligations have been fulfilled.

SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT (GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the action of certain members of the police in raiding the house of a man called Marcovitz, residing at 132, Thistle Street, Glasgow, without a search warrant, on account of an alleged theft of cigarettes by another person; that no prosecution took place; and that Mr. Marcovitz was guiltless of any crime; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiry, and am informed that Mr. Marcovitz's shop and an apartment in rear were searched by the police on the 7th May last in consequence of a statement by a man then in custody (who was later sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment for theft of cigarettes) that he had sold a quantity of the stolen property to Mr. Marcovitz. The search disclosed no evidence on which proceedings could be taken. On the information before me I have no reason to think that the circumstances were such as to require the
possession of a search warrant by the police. I see no ground for action on my part.

WEIR HOUSES.

Mr. STEPHEN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of Weir houses erected in Glasgow, the cost of erection of each and the number of houses which have been let, and the rent at which they have been let?

Sir J. GILMOUR: By 31st ultimo 198 Weir houses had been erected with the aid of State funds, and 96 had been let, the annual rents being £27 10s. for three-apartment flats, £28 for three-apartment bungalows, and £34 for four-apartment cottages. The cost of erection cannot yet be stated as the Contracts are not completed.

Mr. STEPHEN: Do these rents include the rates?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Are the houses of the Weir type which have been erected up to the number the Government expected would be built?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I think the progress is quite good.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PLAY AREAS, SOUTHWARK.

Colonel DAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that only 1.1 per cent. of the area of the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark is open space, and the population averages 14,500 persons to the acre of such open spaces, he will consider the possibility of closing certain streets in the area to vehicles on certain fixed days in order that children may have opportunities for uninterrupted play?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am advised that it would require legislation to enable the hon. Member's suggestion to be put into force, and, while the object he seeks to obtain, namely, additional facilities for children to play,' is one that has my sympathy, the practical difficulties of his proposal are too great.

OVERHEAD TRAMWAY WIRES, LONDON.

Colonel DAY: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport the number and names of authorities or companies owning electric tramcars within the metropolitan area that derive their power from overhead wires; whether his attention has been drawn to the danger experienced by pedestrians owing to the breakage of uninsulated wires; whether any action is possible with a view to avoiding such danger; and, if so, will he consider introducing legislation making it compulsory to prevent this danger?

Colonel ASHLEY: There are 12 authorities or companies working tramways in the Metropolitan Police Area on the overhead trolley system, namely, Barking Urban District Council, Bexley and Dart-ford Joint Committee, Croydon Corporation, East Ham Corporation, Erith Urban District Council, IIford Urban District Council, London County Council, London United Tramways, Limited, Metropolitan Electric Tramways, Limited, South Metropolitan Electric Tramways and Lighting Company, Limited, Walthamstow Urban District Council, and West Ham Corporation. The number of reported cases of injury caused by the falling of the overhead conductor wires of tramway systems in the Metropolitan Police Area is very small, and it would not seem from the reports received that legislative action is necessary. The duty of proper maintenance of such wires rests with the tramway authorities, and I have no evidence at present of any general neglect of this duty.

TAXI-CABS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport when it is expected that the sub-committee which has been set up to consider the question of crawling taximeter cabs and to suggest a remedy will report?

Colonel ASHLEY: The subject in my hon. Friend's question is at present under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee and I cannot say when they will be in a position to report to me upon it. The subject is one of considerable difficulty and complexity.

Commander BELLAIRS: 61.
asked the Home Secretary how many taximeter cabs with cheaper fares are now plying in the
London area, what are the prospects of the near future under the £350,000 guarantee, and how many of these cheaper taximeter cabs are being placed on the streets by the Beardmore Taxi-cab Company?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no taximeter cabs are yet licensed in the Metropolitan Police area to ply for hire at the cheaper rate of fare. Two different types of cabs, namely, "K.R.C." and the "Beardmore," have been approved by the Commissioner. In the case of the "K.R.C.," delay in licensing is attributed to the fact that it is not possible to obtain the materials for manafacture, owing to the present dislocation of industry. With regard to the "Beardmore," it has been ascertained that the cab, which was approved as the first of its type, has been sent to Scotland for the making of patterns and laying down of plant, etc., for the purpose of production. No definite information can be obtained as to the number it is proposed to place on the streets.

Sir FRANK MEYER: In view of the fact that there must be prolonged delay in putting these cabs on the streets for the use of the public, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position and lower the present fares?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be impossible to do that till the promoters of two-seater cabs have been given a chance, which, really, they have not had.

ROAD TRANSPORT BILL.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can make any statement as to the date of the introduction of his promised Bill dealing with motor and other transport?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in a position to make any statement regarding the date of introduction of the proposed Bill dealing with road transport, but I cannot hold out any hope that it will be during the present Session.

TRAVELLING FACILITIES (NORTH LONDON).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes
to issue the Report of the public inquiry held by the London Traffic Advisory Committee last autumn into the inadequacy of travelling facilities in North London?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Reports of the London Traffic Advisory Committee on the inquiries held into the passenger travelling facilities in North and North-East London and East London are now in the hands of the printers and will be published as soon as possible. The printing, however, may take a few weeks.

Colonel APPLIN: May I ask whether anything has been done in regard to an underground railway to the North of London?

Colonel ASHLEY: Obviously nothing can be done until those Reports have been fully considered.

GRAVESEND-TILBURY FERRY SERVICE.

Mr. ALBERY: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport, if he will bring to the notice of the railway companies concerned the need for an improved and cheaper ferry service between Gravesend and Tilbury?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have communicated with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, who state that a new steamer specially designed for vehicular traffic was placed on this service in October, 1924, and that, in view of the increasing number of motor cars using the ferry, they are considering the question of providing an additional steamer of the same type. I am also informed that the ferry charges were revised at the beginning of this year and were reduced in several cases. The company assure me that the ferry service is continuously under consideration and that they will take any reasonable steps to meet the wishes of the travelling public.

ROUNDABOUT TRAFFIC, LONDON.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make any definite statement as to the working of the one-way traffic experiment in London, and more especially as to its effect on the shopping centres?

Colonel ASHLEY: If, as I assume to be the case, my hon. Friend refers to
the "roundabout" systems of traffic control which have been put into operation in London, I think there can be no doubt that from a traffic point of view they have proved very successful. The Westminster City Council have, however, informed me of complaints which they have received from shopkeepers in certain areas where these systems are working, to the effect that their trade has been adversely affected. In the case of one street, the Haymarket, the Council have asked for a reconsideration, and I am hopeful that a satisfactory arrangement may be reached.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the recently published statistics showing an alarming increase in the number of traffic accidents in London, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is no connection between that state of affairs and this new roundabout system?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not known of anybody being directly injured by the roundabout system, and there has only been a very short time to get accustomed to it.

TRAMWAYS (BRAKING SYSTEMS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport in how many CUSOK, since 1st January, 1925, he has investigated tramway accidents which were in any way connected with the braking system of the vehicles; whether in any of these cases the braking systems were found to be defective; and whether he is satisfied that as a general rule the braking systems of tramcars are fully adequate for all purposes?

Colonel ASHLEY: Apart from a number of cases in which inquiries and recommendations have been made by correspondence, formal inquiries into six tramway accidents have been held by inspecting officers of railways during the period to which my hon. Friend refers. In one of these cases it was found that the accident was primarily due to an undetected flaw in the brake mechanism. I am advised that the braking systems in use on tramways are generally adequate for all purposes, provided, of course, that the mechanism is properly maintained and handled, and the regulations complied with.

RURAL ROADS (GRANTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport how many borough councils have applied for grants under Circular 234, and how many have received grants; and whether he will state how he decides whether the area of a borough council is rural in character?

Colonel ASHLEY: Applications for grants tinder Circular No. 234 have been received from 56 borough councils in England and. Wales. Eleven of these boroughs have been accepted as eligible for grants under the scheme. The decision in each case is based upon a careful study of the general character and population of the locality.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us how he judges whether a borough council area is rural or not?

Colonel ASHLEY: I rather hesitate to give reasons for my decision, as some of them might be challenged, but, broadly speaking, our view is that the areas should be rural in character and the population not more than one to the acre.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

BROADCASTING (INTERCHANGE OF INFORMATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether inquiries are made from time to time by his Department with regard to the, progress of broadcasting in other countries: whether any system exists for the interchange of information; and, if so, whether that information is received and sent out at regular intervals?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Information as regards the progress of broadcasting in other countries is received from various sources, and, where desirable, inquiries on specific points are made of the Governments concerned. A memorandum as regards broadcasting in certain countries will be found in the published Report of the Broadcasting Committee of 1923, and further particulars were placed at the disposal of the Committee of 1925.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Sir W. de FRECE: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General the average number of parcels being handled per day under the cash-on-delivery system, and the total number of parcels delivered to date?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The average number of inland cash-on-delivery parcels handled daily during October is 3,782. The total number of such parcels delivered between the 29th March, when the service was introduced, and the end of October is approximately 550,000.

Sir W. de FRECE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the revenue derived from this branch?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think I could do that offhand.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is the Department losing money over this?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Oh, no, Sir.

POSTMARK ADVERTISEMENTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any protests with reference to the proposed advertising scheme by postmarks: and whether he has taken legal advice as to the right of the Government in so utilising mail in transit?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do about it?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I told the House I should, I have been inquiring into the probable revenue to be derived from schemes of this kind. My inquiries have shown that the revenue to be derived in present circumstances is quite small, and it is therefore not proposed to put the scheme into operation at present.

LOSS ON TELEGRAMS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give approximate figures of the loss sustained on telegrams during the past 12 months?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I gave the figures which my hon. Friend desires
in the Debate on the Post Office Estimates on 14th July last to which I would invite him to refer. Including interest and depreciation, the deficiency was about £1,300,000.

DOMINION AND INDIAN MAILS.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: 41
asked the Postmaster-General the average time taken for the conveyance of mails by sea from this country to Australia, New Zealand, India and Ceylon, respectively, in the years 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1926?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Except during the War and the early post-War period, the average times taken in the conveyance of mails to the destinations named have not varied much. The mails for Australia now take 29 days to Adelaide as against 31 in 1900, and to Auckland via North America 31–34 days against 35 in 1900. To Bombay and Colombo the times (14½ days and 16 days respectively) are practically the same now as in 1900.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time that his Department, or the Government, got into communication with some of these shipping companies, in order to see whether they would put on quicker steamers so that the passage may be accelerated?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee, where the matter is most fully discussed.

Sir F. HALL: Is the Postmaster-General not aware that these suggestions have been brought forward by the Prime Minister of Australia in regard to acceleration, and are the Government doing anything with regard to these proposals?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully aware of the facts, and all these schemes are being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

SANATORIUM AND HOSPITAL TREATMENT.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-service men whose malady is admitted to be
attributable to, or aggravated by, war service, are awaiting sanatorium or hospital treatment at the present tune; if thee is any accumulation of such waiting cases; and when his Department expects to be able to deal with them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The number of ex-Service men awaiting admission to sanatoria or hospitals was, at the end of September last (the latest date for which figures are available), 328. This number is well within the average weekly number of admissions to Ministry hospitals alone, and I am satisfied that there is no accumulation of cases awaiting treatment.

POST OFFICE (DISCHARGES).

Sir WILLIAM BULL: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General if dismissal notices have been issued, or are about to be issued, to any or all of the overseas ex-Service Grade III temporary male clerks employed in the Post Office Savings Bank Department, Blythe Road, West Kensington?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Notices of discharge were issued recently to certain ex-Service temporary clerks who v. ere employed in the Post Office rind whose efficiency was not regarded as justifying their further retention. The number of men concerned in the Savings Rank Department was 15, but the notices have not all vet taken effect. It will probably be necessary soon to discharge other temporary clerks from the Post Office in order to make way for candidates who qualified in the Southborough Examination and who have a prior claim to employment. This question is at present under consideration.

Sir F. HALL: May we take it that preference will be given to ex-Service men, or in other words, that non-Service men of a temporary nature will not be retained at the expense of these ex-Service men?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Subject to the Southborough Agreement, that rule already obtains.

Mr. B. SMITH: What is the length of service of these employ és who have received notice?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CORN AND HAY CROPS.

Mr. ALBERY: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any figures showing how the harvest this year compares with that of last year, especially as regards wheat?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a statement recently published by my Department showing the production of the corn and hay crops for 1926 with comparisons for 1925, and a similar statement for hops. I will also send him a. further statement relating to the production of roots and potatoes as soon as it is issued.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease from the beginning of the year to the latest available date, and the estimated compensation paid?

Mr. GUINNESS: One hundred and ninety-one outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed in this country since the 1st January last, and the estimated amount of compensation paid has been £175,000.

ALLOTMENTS.

Sir C. CAYZER: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated number of allotments in England and Wales at the latest available date, indicating the amount of loans sanctioned by the Ministry of Health during the past three years for the purchase and adaptation of land for the purpose of allotments?

Mr. GUINNESS: The estimated number of allotments in England and Wales on the 31st December, 1925, was 1,106,000, with an area of 163,000 acres. The amount of loans sanctioned by the Ministry of Health during the three years 1923–25 for the purchase and adaptation of land for allotments was £228,374.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, taking each
sugar-beet factory now operating, he will state the capital in each case and the aggregate amount of subsidy hitherto received by each?

Factory.
Issued Share Capital.
Total Subsidy paid up to 6th November, 1926
Seasons in operation





£
£
s.
d.



1.
Cantley
…
450,507
776,899
11
11
1924–25, 1925–26, 1926–27.


2.
Kelham
…
125,000
277,125
2
2
1924–25, 1925–26, 1926–27.


3.
Ely
…
250,000
335,026
1
9
1925–26, 1926–27.


4.
Ipswich
…
250,000
141,012
4
2
1925–26, 1926–27.


5.
Colwick
…
425,000
250,375
2
6
1924–25, 1925–26, 1926–27.


6.
Spalding
…
8,267
1
10
1926–27.


7.
Kidderminster
…
180,000
86,216
3
0
1925–26, 1926–27.


8.
Cupar
…
250,000
—


1926–27.


9.
Felstead
…
—


1926–27.


10.
Poppleton
…
1,019
0
1
1926–27.


11.
Bury St. Edmunds
…
300,000
138,696
16
11
1925–26, 1926–27.


12.
Wissington
…
350,000
58,208
7
10
1925–26, 1926–27.


13.
Peterborough
…
175,000
8,059
2
1
1926–27.


14.
Greenock
…
170,000
4,105
5
10
1925–26, 1926–27.


Total
…
2,925,507
2,085,010
0
1
—


NOTE.—(1) The Cantley and Kelham Factories were working in years before the subsidy came into operation.


(2) The amounts of subsidy paid for the 1926–27 season vary considerably, some factories having only commenced working the beet quite recently.

FOREIGN MEAT (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture for what period the present embargo upon the importation of fresh meat from the Continent is Continent is operative; and whether it is the intention of the Government to guarantee the continuance of the embargo for a period of years?

Mr. GUINNESS: While the position on the Continent of Europe as regards foot-and-mouth disease remains in so unsatisfactory a state, I cannot contemplate any substantial modification or the withdrawal of the Order in question. It is impossible for me, however, to guarantee that the restrictions will remain in force for any specified time.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right, hon. Gentleman aware that the extension of growing in this country, which everyone hopes for, can only come about if some guarantee is given?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the farmers can pretty well assess the chances of improvement on the Continent. As a

Mr. GUINNESS: I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL EFFORT a statement giving the desired information.

Following is the statement:

matter of fact, since we put on the embargo Continental conditions have become much worse; and in France, Belgium and Holland whereas in May they had 7,086 outbreaks, in the last available month, that is September, they had 38,548 outbreaks, and we can compare that with our comparative immunity under the embargo of one outbreak in the last three weeks.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of these figures, world it not be advisable to give at least a limited guarantee to the growers in this country that this embargo will continue for, say, a year or two years?

Mr. GUINNESS: While the disease danger is as it is at present, clearly we cannot contemplate any relaxation, but it would he impossible, in view of the possibility of change, to mak any lasting pledge.

MILK.

Sir C. CAYZER: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the campaign now being promoted in many
urban districts with the object of authorising all medical officers in any district to which milk is supplied to inspect the farm or farms from which such supplies originate; what is the attitude of his Department on the matter; and whether he is aware of the objections from every standpoint of the dairying interest to such policy?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has been asked to reply to this, question. He has received copies of resolutions passed by a number of urban authorities in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is aware of the objections of the dairying interest to the policy recommended in these resolutions, and he does not at present contemplate the introduction of legislation to amend the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, which now governs this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to exempt from the Milk and Dairies Order farmers who sell milk only to their own farm workers and their families?

Sir K. WOOD: As at present advised, my right bon. Friend sees no reason for exempting from the requirements of the Order farmers who sell milk only to farm workers and their families. There seems no reason why such persons should not have the same protection as is accorded to the rest of the community by the Milk and Dairies Order.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if this Order is enforced, a large number of farmers will cease to supply milk to their men?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope that that is not the case. I venture to suggest that this is only a reasonable requirement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS (EXPORT).

Mr. AMMON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that guns supplied by British armament firms were used by enemy countries against the British and Allied troops in the recent War; and if he will prohibit the export of arms to foreign countries in future?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Except for captured
guns, His Majesty's Government are not aware that guns supplied by British armament firms were so used. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that this material was used in the manner described largely owing to the treacherous action of the Russian Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ACCOMMODATION (BUILDING SCHEMES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with a view to preventing the growth of Government staffs, the Government will refuse to sanction any further large building schemes for Government accommodation?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The object desired by my hon. and gallant Friend would not necessarily be secured by the means which he suggests. Indeed a large building scheme may in certain circumstances be more economical than a number of small schemes or new hirings of premises. Each case has to be carefully considered on its merits.

HYDE PARK GANGER (SUNDAY DUTY).

Mr. HAYES: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. J. Thoms, formerly employed as ganger in Hyde Park, and' who has performed Sunday duty for 32 years, has now been refused permission to include the wages of this day among his emoluments reckonable for pension or gratuity, and that the Department contends that this permission is only earned when the Sunday duty is both regular and compulsory; whether he is aware that the duty was admittedly regular, and that Mr. Thoms was verbally told at the commencement of his service that such duty was a part of his condition of service, and whether, in view of the fact that he was so allowed to serve throughout his whole service life without question, he will have this case reconsidered?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I have been asked to reply. As I informed the hon. Member privately, the First Commissioner has given the fullest considera-
tion to the claim made by Mr. Thoms for the inclusion of his Sunday duty pay in the emoluments reckonable for gratuity, but is unable to trace any circumstance which would justify a departure from the rule which has been applied to all similar cases and which excludes such pay from the calculation for gratuity on retirement. The Sunday duty was not compulsory, and there is no evidence in official documents that Mr. Thoms was informed that it was part of his conditions of service.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES.

BRITISH DEBT.

Sir W. DAVISON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the debt which Great Britain is now repaying to the United States of America which was incurred prior to the Armistice; and what proportion this sum bears to the whole debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The United States Government advanced $3,696,000,000 to His Majesty's Government before the Armistice and $581,000,000 after the Armistice. But on the other hand His Majesty's Government after the Armistice but before the debt settlement paid $496,000,000 to the United States Government as repayment of principal and as interest, and expended $151,000,000 in winding up pre-Armistice munitions contracts, making a total of $647,000,000 as against $581,000,000. Accordingly the whole amount of the debt which Great Britain is now repaying may be regarded as having been incurred prior to the Armistice.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the recent American electioneering campaign it was generally stated that the debt which America was asking to he repaid to her was practically all post-Armistice money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Our time has often been taken up in dealing with misstatements.

IMMIGRATION QUOTAS (UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY).

Commander BELLAIRS: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of immigrants allowed into
the United States from the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively; and what will be the numbers when the new law comes into operation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The number of quota immigrants permitted to enter the United States from the United Kingdom and Germany respectively in any one year is at present 34,007 and 51,227. The calculations necessary to determine the quotas for the period after the 1st July, 1927, in accordance with the provisions contained in the United States Immigration Act of 1924, have not, so far as I am aware, yet been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS (TRUSTEE LIST).

Sir W. DAVISON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need to husband British credit in order to reduce taxation by conversion of debt, steps will be taken to secure that no loan shall in future be placed on the Trustee list under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, unless a sinking fund for repayment within a specified time is provided; and also that the prospectus of any such loan shall give details of the financial position of the borrower and of the purpose for which the loan is required?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I agree that my hon. Friend's proposals are desirable both from the point of view of the investing public and, since the judgment of the market finally decides the terms on which loans can he raised, from that of borrowing Governments. But, as I stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry on the 25th March, I am not at present advised that I have power to compel borrowers to comply with such conditions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of discussing this matter with the Dominion Premiers who are in this country, and will he also ascertain the opinion of the Stock Exchange Committee 'is cc, whether it would be desirable, in the interests of the Dominions as well as of our own, to have some legislation dealing with this matter as soon as possible?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Opportunities for an exchange of views will be taken as they arise.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentlemen consider it patriotic to make these insinuations against our Dominions beyond the seas, and does he think it will help their credit?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there is anything unpatriotic in answering the question put on the Parr I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish British investors to be misled in any way, and that is the only object.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING DUTY.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, as a matter of justice, of so amending the provisions of the Betting Duty that a bookmaker who has now to pay the tax on a bet in respect of which his client fails to pay may claim a refund of the tax, especially in view of the fact that the bookmaker is at a total loss of both the money staked and the tax paid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Southwark on the 4th August last.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of amending that reply in order that justice may be done?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has there been any picketing while the bookmakers were out on strike?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that things have been happily arranged.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in regard to the tax payable in respect of transferred bets, the bookmaker who accepts the bet is immediately liable for the tax and the bookmaker to wham the bet is transferred is also liable for the tax in respect of the same bet; and whether he can see his way to permit the bookmaker who originally accepts the bet to deduct the tax from his weekly account, seeing that he is being deprived of the use of a certain amount of capital of his business
during the time he is waiting for the money he has advanced to the Treasury, and which he is entitled to claim, to be refunded?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The charge to duty is on every bet made with a bookmaker, and therefore the legal position is generally as stated in the first part of the question. It is also provided that a rebate of duty may be made in the case of transferred bets where the Department is satisfied that the bet has actually been transferred to another bookmaker. The procedure adopted has been laid down in order that the Department may be satisfied as the law requires and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to authorise any modification.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (WAR BONUS).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is now in a position to say whether the war bonus of the police can be reckoned as part of their annual pay and pensionable, as was recently decided in the case of Poor Law officers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I told my hon. and gallant Friend, this point has been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I have not yet received their advice on the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN COTTON DUTIES.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, if he can make any statement on the recent proposal put forward by the Bombay millowners to increase the Indian cotton duties; and whether he has received any representations from Lancashire on the subject?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The, question is at present under reference to the Indian Tariff Board. The statement submitted to the Board by the Millowners' Association has been reported in the Press. Until the Tariff Board has reported, my Noble Friend cannot make any statement on the subject. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMOUR-PLATE PLANTS.

Mr. AMMON: 64.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that there are five armour-plate plants in this country, and that one of these is enough to make all the armour-plate required for the cruisers allowed under the. Washington Convention until the year 1931, he is taking steps to induce the manufacturers to maintain their plants and their technical staffs so that these may be in existence in 1931 when the building of heavy ships may be resumed?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Yes, Sir, and the necessary steps have been completed

Oral Answers to Questions — SEABOARD COLONIES (ASSISTANCE IN EMERGENCIES).

Viscount SANDON: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any organised system whereby seaboard Colonies can have direct appeal to the naval Commander-in-Chief of the area for immediate assistance in the ease of emergency; and why it was necessary in the case of the recent disaster in the Bahamas for the Secretary of State to appeal himself to the Admiralty for assistance?

The SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIAS (Mr. Amery): Yes. Sir; the Commander-in-Chief of a station or the senior officer resent at a port is instructed in King's Regulations for the Navy to pay due regard to such requisitions as he may receive from the Governor of a British Colony or other dependency in case of emergency As regards the second part of the question, I asked the Admiralty to arrange for a naval vessel to proceed to Nassau from the North America and West Indies Station, as I had no information as to whether or not the Governor had been able to communicate direct with the British naval authorities in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (IMPERIAL FAST SHIP SCHEME).

Sir HENRY COWAN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Imperial fast ship scheme for pro-
viding seven new large 22-knot ships of a type which does not now exist, for a new service between Britain and Australia, via India and Ceylon, for the carriage of mails, passengers and refrigerated and general cargo; whether his attention has been called to the published statement of the Prime Minister of Australia that the success of tins scheme depends upon the co-operation of the Imperial and the other Dominion and Colonial Governments concerned; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter, in view of the advantages which it is claimed that this new service would offer for inter-Imperial trade, not only between Britain and Australia, but between Britain and India and between Australia and India?

Sir J. PENNEFATHER: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether proposals have come tinder his notice in regard to a 22-knot service of steamers between this country and Australia, New Zealand, India and Ceylon, thereby shortening sea passages by four to nine days; and, if so, can he indicate what action he proposes to take to encourage this closer linking up of the Empire?

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the proposed fast ocean service scheme consisting of seven hew large 22-knot ships for a new service between Great Britain and Australia, via India and Ceylon, for the carriage of mails, passengers and refrigerated and general cargo; whether, in view of the advantages which it is claimed that the new service could offer for inter-Imperial trade not only between Great Britain and Australia but between Great Britain and India and between Australia and India, attention will be given to the project by the Imperial Government: and whether, in view of the public announcement by the Prime Minister of Australia that the success of the new scheme would depend Upon the co-operation of the Imeprial and other Dominion and Colonial Governments concerned, he can assure the House of the Imperial Government's cooperation?

Mr. HARNEY: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention Las been called to a scheme now
under consideration by the Australian Government, and approved by the Australian Prime Minister, for an Imperial fast steamship service scheme by ships to be built at British shipyards, involving an outlay of about £10,000,000, for service between this country and Australia via India and Ceylon; and whether he is prepared to co-operate with the Australian Government, with a view to making the scheme a success?

Mr. AMERY: The proposals referred to are under the consideration of a Committee of the Imperial Conference, and I am not, therefore, at present in a position to give any indication as to any action which His Majesty's Government may take in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (RAILWAYS).

Mr. BENNETT: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information showing which of the Chinese railways in which British investors are interested are now actually running; and whether interest on the English issue of the Tientsin-Pukow Bond is now being paid?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: According to the latest report from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, the Shanghai-Nanking and the Shanghai-Hangchow-Ningpo Railways are now working well. As regards, the Peking-Mukden, the Tientsin-Pukow, and the Canton-Kowloon Railways, I understand that, although they are actually working, civil war conditions and interference by the, local authorities have considerably impaired their earning capacity. Both issues of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway Loans of 1908 and 1910 are still in default.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN-SPANISH TREATY.

Viscount SANDON: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had advance intimation of the negotiations for and conclusion of the Italian-Spanish Treaty; and whether its terms preserve the rights of the League of Nations and the interests of Great Britain in the Mediterranean?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I
would refer the Noble Lord to the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Covenant, and would add that the Italian Government have assured my right hon. Friend that there is nothing in the Treaty contrary to the obligations of the parties as signatories of the Covenant, which has all the force of a prior engagement. The answer to the third part is that the Treaty in no way affects the interests of Great Britain in the Mediterranean.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (TREATIES).

Viscount SANDON: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the new Perso-Russian treaty; whether British interests are affected; and whether it and the Turco-Persian treaty have been registered with the League of Nations?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government have no information of the conclusion of a new Russo-Persian treaty, nor have they yet been notified that the recent Turco-Persian treaty has been registered with the. League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLESBROUGH BOARD OF GUARDIANS (OVERDRAFT).

The following question, stood on the Order Payer in the name of MR. TREVELYAN THOMSON:—
75. To ask the Minister of Health if he will favourably consider the application of the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians for an extended period or five years for the repayment, of their overdraft of £120,000 for relief, in view of the heavy burden of existing rates?

Mr. THOMSON: May I, without presumption, take this opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to accept the good wishes of the House for the speedy recovery of Lady Wood from her alarming accident?

Sir K. WOOD: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.
In answer to this question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question put by him on the 26th October last.

Oral Answers to Questions — MACHINE-SKIMMED CONDENSED MILK.

Mr. RYE: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that machine-skimmed condensed milk, lacking in nutritive quality, is being imported into Great Britain in increased quantities; and what steps, if any, he will take to ensure that such imported milk is not sold for infant consumption?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware that the imports of condensed Lachine-skimmed milk are increasing. The Condensed Milk Regulations require that every tin containing this article shall be labelled with the words "machine-skimmed" and "unfit for babies." He does not think that it is practicable to take any further steps to ensure that this article is not sold for infant consumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING SUBSIDY.

Mr. BENNETT: 79.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now state what steps the Government propose to take in regard to the housing subsidy?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make as to the business of the House during the remainder of the Session

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour the present indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and tin indebtedness on May 1st last.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The debt of the Unemployment. Fund to the Treasury on 6th November, 1926, was £19.300,000, and on May 1st, 1926, £7,470,000.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what interest is being paid on the overdraft?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should require, notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour the present index figure of the cost-of-living and the figure of a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The latest available cost-of-living index figure, which relates to 1st October, showed an increase of 74 per cent. as compared with July, 1914. The corresponding percentage for 1st October, 1925, was 76.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WRAPPING PAPER DUTY).

Mr. GERALD HURST: 84.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the numbers of workpeople employed in paper making in England has increased or diminished since the coming into force of the Paper Duty, and to what extent?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that the information necessary for answering this question is not available. If my hon. and learned Friend will communicate with me, I will give him such information as I have.

Mr. HURST: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any and, if so, what diminution has taken place in the numbers of workpeople employed, respectively, in the manufacture of textilose or paper yarn and in box making since the coming into force of the Paper Duty; and what effect such duty has had upon the paper yarn manufacture in and near Manchester?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Separate statistics of the numbers of persons employed in the branches of industry mentioned by my hon. Friend are not available. I regret, therefore, I am unable to give the information desired.

Mr. HURST: Is my right hon. Friend aware that works have had to close down owing to taxation of their raw material?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no information of anything of that kind. As I have indicated in my answer, there is no information that. I can obtain as regards figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANIMAL SLAUGHTER.

Mr. HAYES (for Mr. GROVES): 76.
asked the. Minister of Health whether he is aware that in September two boys in Leeds, aged eight and nine, played at being butchers and maimed and mutilated 16 calves and cut the tendons of one calf so that it was unable to move, slashed others in the face and in various parts of the body, and cut off the tail of another, and that the chairman of the Juvenile Court said that it was one of the most distressing cases he had known, and that it was found that the two boys had been in the habit of witnessing the sights of the slaughter-house; and whether he will recommend that Clause 9b of the Ministry of Health bye-laws, enforcing the use of a mechanically-operated killer of animals, he adopted in Leeds by the local authorities and other places?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention had been called by the City Council to the case mentioned in the first part of the question. They are already proposing a new by-law to prohibit slaughtering in the public view, and this seems to bear more directly on the case than the particular by-law suggested in the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMISTICE DAY (WEARING DECEASED SOLDIERS' MEDALS).

Major COHEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether there is any legal or other objection to the wearing of their dead heroes' war medals by the relatives of ex-Service men killed in the War, on Armistice Day; and, if there is none, he will take this opportunity of making the position clear in order that the ninny thousands of women who are only able in this way to show their connection with the dead may have their minds set at rest?

Sir WILLIAM LANE-MITCHELL: asked the Home Secretary if he will allow war medals to be worn by mothers, widows or children of dead war heroes on Armistice Day as hitherto?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad to have an opportunity of making an explanation in regard to this matter, upon which some misapprehension has arisen. Though it was decided to omit
from the notices issued this year any specific invitation to wear such decorations, there was, of course, never any intention of attempting to interfere with those whose feelings might prompt them on this special occasion to show respect to their honoured dead in this way, and I take this opportunity of making it clear that any woman who desires to wear the war decorations of a near and dear relative who is no longer with her has the fullest liberty to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

Sir W. DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any, and if so, what grant from public funds has recently been promised to the University of London; in what circumstances has such grant been promised, and what conditions have been attached to the same?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I promised in June last, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we would be prepared within certain financial s to ask Parliament to make provision for improved accommodation of the University, subject to approval by the Treasury of plans to be formulated by the Senate.

Sir W. DAVISON: Was it not understood that that referred to administrative buildings in South Kensington, and not to the re-purchase of any of the abandoned sites in Bloomsbury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it applies to both, and even so, it constitutes a considerable saving to the Exchequer as against the original plan.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

BILLS TO BE PASSED.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Prime Minister make any statement on the business to be taken in this last part of the Session?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): 

CHIEF BILLS.

The chief Measures now before Parliament with which the Government
propose to proceed and to pass into law before Christmas are the

Electricity (Supply),
Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods), and
Rating (Scotland)—which are awaiting Report and Third Reading.
Small Holdings and Allotments and Housing Rural Workers—which are now before Standing Committees.
Betting Overseas (Prohibition);
Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee);

the Committee Stage of the Money Resolution for the latter Bill is in progress.

SUPPLY.

The House will be asked to consider Supplementary Estimates for the Relief of Unemployment and Broadcasting and to pass the necessary Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill for the issue of the money.

MINOR BILLS.

There is a number of small important Bills which the Government believe will prove to he non-controversial, and it is desired to pass as many of these as possible into law be bore Prorogation.

All stages of the
Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs [Lords]:
Forestry [Lords]:
Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) [Lords]:
Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction [Lords]:
Judicial Committee [Lords]:
Mental Deficiency [Lords];
Navel Reserve (Officers):
Parks Regulation (Amendment) [Lords]:
Prisons (Scotland);
Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) [Lords]:
Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland:
University of London [Lords]:
Workmen's Compensation (No. 2):
Wild Birds Protection [Lords].
Remaining stages of the
Coroners (Amendment) [Lords];
Industrial Assurance (Juvenile Societies) [Lords];
Legitimacy [Lords];
888
Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments) [Lords];
Public Health (Smoke Abatement) [Lords].

PRIVATE MEMBERS BILLS.

The Government hope, if time permits, to afford facilities for the remaining stages of the following Private Members Bills:

Births and Deaths (Registration);

Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports); and the

Roman Catholic Relief Bills.

These Bills have passed through the Standing Committees, and there appears to be a large measure of support for them in all parts of the House.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.

In addition to the Bills mentioned, it may be necessary to consider Lords Amendments to the

Expiring Laws Continuance;

Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning); and

Police Pensions Bills,

which have already passed this House.

BILL TO BE DROPPED.

It is not proposed to proceed with the Factories (No. 2) Bill this Session.

The House will be asked to approve by Resolution an Order dealing with Exchequer contributions tinder the Housing Acts, proposed to be made by the Minister of Health and the Scottish Board of Health under Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1924.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether the Prime Minister considers that that lengthy programme will afford the House, it desired, opportunities of further discussion on the coal lock-out, and whether the Prime Minister can make any statement on the scope and meaning of the Government's proposals for the relief of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot reply to the last question at the moment. We shall indicate as early as possible what the contents will be. In regard to the first question, while we are always anxious to oblige all parts of the House, so far as possible in the consideration of business, with opportunities for the dis-
cussion of various subjects we are, of course, limited by the time there is. It is always open, as my right hon. Friend is aware, for the Opposition at any time to secure such discussion as they desire by putting down a Vote of Censure. There will, of course, be an opportunity afforded for a discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill dealing with all questions concerning unemployment.

Mr. W. THORNE: Would the Vote of Censure be carried?

Mr. THURTLE: Has the Prime Minister any intention of providing time for discussion of the existing situation in China?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not that before me at the moment, but the question should be addressed in the usual way to the Chief Whip, who is responsible for the conduct of business.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Would it be permissible to discuss the matters suggested by the Prime Minister, such as unemployment, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, if they are not included in the Consolidated Fund Bill? The Prime Minister made a statement that we might have a general discussion upon, these matters. Can we have such a discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill? If they are not in the Bill, we cannot discuss them.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is for me to wait and see what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the Prime Minister intend to have these items in the Bill, seeing that he has said we can have a discussion upon them on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member had better wait until a later date. I am not quite clear what it is he means. What I said was that matters dealing with unemployment would obviously come for discussion under the Consolidated Fund Bill. There is in the Consolidated Fund Bill permission to pay out the money which this House has voted for the purpose of unemployment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that further censure is necessary, after the 1st November?

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Captain Viscount Elveden, Mr. Fielden, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Sandman, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, Mr. Wiggins, and Mr. Womersley.

Mr. WILLLIM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Blundell, Captain Bourne, Captain Briscoe, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Christie, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Mr. Dean, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Sir Robert Hamilton, Captain Robert Henderson, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Major Alan McLean, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Rhys, Major Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Shepperson, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Wheatley, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Colonel Windsor-Clive.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. HANNON: I do not propose to move the New Clause (As to supply in bulk in London), standing in my name. I am putting down an Amendment to a later Clause.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: On a point of Order. May I make a suggestion in regard to the consideration of the Amendments before the House. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to arrange that all the Amendments put down to the Bill should have an identification number, as was done when a similarly long list of Amendments were considered in Standing Committee, and that that identification number should not be changed so long as the Amendment remains upon the Order Paper? We have 25 pages of Amendments before us, and it would be very useful during this stage and in connection with any correspondence which we may be carrying on as individuals in connection with these Amendments, if it could be arranged that they should have an identification number.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am aware of the procedure which has been adopted upstairs, but I am not able at present to adopt it on the Floor of the House. The New Clause (Constitution of the Board) standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Watford (Mr. Dennis Herbert) should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. The hon. and learned Member has it on the Paper there.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Certain powers of the Electricity Commissioners to be exercised by. the Board.)

"The Electricity Commissioners, before giving or withholding any consent or approval or making any requirement under Section eleven (Restrictions on the establishment of new generating station) or Section nineteen (Power of authorised undertakers to render mutual assistance to one another) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as respectively modified by Section thirteen (Conditions under which restrictions on generating stations and obligation to take supply from are not to
apply) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, with reference to any generating station or main transmission line or arrangement for mutual assistance within the area of any scheme made under Section four of this Act and for the time being in force, shall consult with the Board, and the Electricity Commissioners shall exercise their power of giving or withholding any such consent, approval, or making any such requirement in such manner as the Board may approve."—[Mr. Dennis Herbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope this Amendment will receive the favourable consideration of the Government. It is put down in order to make the working of the scheme easier as between the two bodies, the Electricity Commissioners and the Board. The House will remember that in the Bill as it stands the schemes to be carried out under the Bill, although they have to be prepared by the Commissioners have to be submitted to the Board. The Board has the final word. They have to conduct the inquiries and are able to approve or otherwise of the schemes with or without alteration. In those circumstances I suggest that if the particular powers referred to in the new Clause I am now moving, are to be entirely in the hands of the Commissioners you are likely to have these two bodies working apart from one another, and with the greatest good will on both sides you may create causes of trouble and difficulty. The effect of the new Clause, put quite shortly, is that the Commissioners in the exercise of these powers should consult the Board in order that there may be no difficulties or complications resulting from any action of the Commissioners without the concurrence of the Board.
It is not necessary for me to say much more about this new Clause; the intention is quite clear, and I hope it is also unobjectionable. I ought to remind the House that this new Clause was down in the Committee stage in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) and on referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the Standing Committee on lath July I notice that the hon. and gallant Member rose to his feet and said a few words. I do not know what was the matter with the hon. and gallant Member on that
day, I do not generally accuse him of being unduly afraid of the Members of the Government or anybody else, but directly he got through those few words, the Attorney-General rose to his feet and said quite shortly, "We do not agree to this," and this appears to have caused the hon. and gallant Member to collapse, for he said, "If I had known that, I am 'sure I would not have mentioned it." I was not a member of the Committee and I do not know the true inwardness of what occurred, but I hope the Attorney-General has considered this point more carefully and will see that the new Clause is moved in the hope of making the Bill more workable and that in those circumstances he will give it his sympathetic consideration.
Just let me say one word which applies not only to this particular New Clause but to all the other Amendments which stand in my name and the names of other hon. Members associated with me. I opposed this Bill strongly on the Second reading, and I said that if it was to be made a workable or useful Bill it would have to be so altered in Committee that the only proper course would be to withdraw it and bring in another Bill. The attitude we take up in regard to this matter to-day is that, although the Bill is still a bad Bill, it has been altered very largely indeed in the Committee stage and in some respects altered for the better. But in dealing with this and other questions I find considerable difficulty in settling the terms of the Amendments. It is a difficulty which must arise when a Bill has been so extensively altered as this Bill has been, but I assure the Attorney-General that, little as I and my friends may like it, our intention on Report stage is to do nothing in the way of attempting to wreck the Measure but to do the best we can to try and improve it. I hope the Attorney-General and other Ministers in charge of the Bill will accept that assurance and in return will give sympathetic attention to the Amendments we move. If they cannot agree to them entirely, I hope they will do their best to meet the points we are endeavouring to put by the Amendments we propose to move.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to take this opportunity of endorsing all that the Mover has said with
regard to our attitude towards the Bill. I should be the last person to endeavour on Report stage to unduly occupy the time of the House or to obstruct the passage of a Measure, however much we may feel as to its ultimate failure. This particular New Clause is really necessary for the effective working of the Measure. Without it the Commissioners will be able to veto the extension of any selected station and prevent the Board opening a new station. They would also be able to grant extensions to the holders of non-selected stations, contrary to the intentions of the Board or any scheme which the Board may adopt. It is obvious, if the scheme is to be worked at all, that the Board must be in a position, in regard to selected stations and transmission work, to see that their schemes and policy can be carried out, and are not frustrated by some negative or contrary action on the part of the Commissioners. As things are to-day, this possibility, of course, does not appear likely to arise, but if this Bill is to be a permanent enactment we must have regard to all possible future situations which may arise. It may be that the Board and the Commissioners will not always see eye to eye on a selected station and transmission lines, and if the principle which has been adopted in the Committee upstairs is to prevail—that the Board shall be supreme in deciding on the scope of the schemes it adopts—if the scheme is to be water-tight, then the present facilities which the Commissioners enjoy of vetoing and rendering abortive the schemes of the Board must be amended. That is the object of this Clause. In consequence of the decision reached upstairs, that the Board should be supreme, it is necessary that the functions exercised by the Commissioners in relation to selected stations and transmission lines should in the future he vested in the Board. On these grounds, I hope the Government will see that this is really a point worth serious consideration, and will be able to accept the new Clause.

4.0 P.M.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friends who Moved and Seconded this new Clause stated that they desire to assist in improving the Bill. I can only say that I welcome assistance from any quarter, however un-likely, but, with regard to the new Clause
which we are now discussing, I think I can satisfy the House, and even my hon. Friends, that in its present form it could not possibly be accepted, because the effect of it as put down is in all areas in which a scheme is operative to subordinate the Electricity Commissioners entirely to the Board, or, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) said, to invest in the Board all the powers of the Electricity Commissioners. Those Members of the House who were members of the Committee upstairs will remember that all through the discussions I was insistant—and the Committee as a whole agreed with me in insisting—that the object of the Bill was not to depreciate or degrade the position of the Electricity Commissioners, and I cannot accept a new Clause which has the avowed intention and the certain effect of making the Electricity Commissioners the subordinate body in all areas in which a scheme is in operation. But it was suggested that there was a danger of friction arising between the Board and the Electricity Commissioners. I do not myself think that is in the least likely to happen, having regard especially to the fact that it is the Commissioners themselves who are to prepare the scheme in the first instance, and it is the Commissioners who are charged with a number of functions in carrying it into effect; but, if it, would meet my hon. Friends who support this Amendment, I would be prepared in Clause 18, which, as the House will remember, is the Clause which preserves the necessity for obtaining consents, and therefore preserves the necessity of getting the consent of the Electricity Commissioners under the sections especially referred to in this suggested new Clause, to add, at the end, the words
Provided that in determining whether to give or to withhold such consent or approval the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme.
That would ensure that the same persons who are charged at present with the responsibility of giving their consent shall still remain the deciding factor as to whether a consent shall be given, but it would also ensure what I am sure we all desire, that, in deciding whether to give a consent or not, regard shall be had to the provisions of the scheme, and that, therefore, they shall not, in a case
where a scheme is in operation providing for one particular generating station, proceed to say, "the scheme says there-shall be a new generating station; we say there shall not." I do not think that they will be in the least likely to do it, but, if it would meet the difficulty felt by my hon. Friends, I would be prepared to move an Amendment in that form if this new Clause be not pressed.

Mr. HERBERT: I shall, of course, without committing myself finally to approval of the words suggested, be very happy to withdraw this particular new-Clause, in the hope that we shall he able to support the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested to Clause 18.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(As to alteration of frequency.)

"On the coming into force of any scheme under Section four of this Act the powers of the Electricity Commissioners under Section twenty-four (Alteration of type of current, etc.) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, shall, so far as they relate to the amendment or alteration of frequency, cease to be exercisable within the area of the scheme."—[Sir J. Nall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has asked me to move this Clause on his behalf. It is intended to clear up an anomaly similar to the one which we have just discussed; but one which, I think, is rather more, serious. Under the Act of 1919, the Commissioners can require a change in frequency in any existing undertaking, and that must be carried out at the expense of that undertaking. Under Clause 4, as originally drafted, and under the provisions of Clause 9 with the Amendments which at a later stage we shall reach, it is intended that the cost of the change of frequency shall be borne by the electricity consumers generally. This new Clause must be considered in regard to a rather ominous Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend has put down to Clause 4, because at present a change in frequency required under a Scheme, adopted under Clause 4 can only be carried out having regard to the pro-
visions of Clause 9. He proposes to leave out those words which require Clause 9 to be observed, so that we shall be in this position, that a scheme adopted by the Board involving a change of frequency could be put into effect, not by the orders of the Board, but by the orders of the Commissioners under the Act of 1919, and in that case the cost, instead of being borne by the whole industry, would be borne by the undertaking in that particular area. Unlikely as it may seem, the effect would be that in the north-east area, or in the Birmingham area, the Commissioners could order, and indeed they can now, a change of frequency at the expense of the area concerned.
One of the points which the Committee insisted upon was that this cost of the change of frequency could not be borne by the industry at all, and much less by the undertaking in the particular locality, but was one which ought to be paid for out of the national exchequer. If the intentions of the Bill and the later intentions of the Board as to changes of frequency are to be effectively carried out, this parallel and possibly opposing power in the hands of the Commissioners must disappear. As the Bill is at present framed, the Board could order a change of frequency in any particular area under the scheme, and the Commissioners the week after could order another change back to the previous frequency. In various parts of the Bill one finds the possibility of a see-saw between the Commissioners and the Board. I think it is perfectly clear that if the Board are to carry out these schemes and be free from negative influences on the part of the Commissioners after those schemes have in fact been adopted, a Clause such as this should be inserted in relation to the change of frequency.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to second the Motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) seemed to anticipate some hidden hand in an Amendment to Clause 4 which is coming on, I hope, later this evening, but I can assure him that when that time conies I shall be able to satisfy him that there is no nefarious desire behind it. The words he referred to are merely to be left out as a draft-
ing Amendment in order to make the different paragraphs of Clause 4 consistent. My hon. Friend was quite right in saying that under the existing law the Commissioners may in certain circumstances require a change of frequency, the cost of which falls on the undertaker who asks for it, and in fact that has been done more than once. That power, of course,, must be retained, because there will be parts of the country which will not be in the scheme, and because, also, it is not only alteration of frequency but other alterations which are covered by Section 24. I am, however, quite willing when we come to Clause 9, if he so desires, to insert as a new Sub-section the words
That where a scheme under Section 4 of the Act has come into force as respects any area, the powers of the Electricity Commissioners under Section 24 of the 1919 Act, so far as they relate to the amendment or alteration of frequency, shall not be exercisable within that area.
I think that meets the point which my hon. Friend is anxious about, and, if that be so, I shall be prepared to insert those words in that place.

Sir J. NALL: On that ground, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. ATTLEE rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object to the withdrawal of the Clause?

Mr. ATTLEE: Yes. The point in both this and the last new Clause has been met by the right hon. and learned Gentleman promising Amendments later on in the Bill. I am rather doubtful about the wisdom of accepting those Amendments, not because I think there is anything specially pernicious in the principle which has been accepted, but because we are, in fact, overloading this Bill by making provisions for events which are not likely to happen. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the new Clauses act entirely on the assumption that both the members of the Board and the Electricity Commissioners will be selected exclusively from persons of feeble minds, if not from actual lunatics. The assumption underlying these Clauses is that on every possible occasion those two bodies are going to checkmate one another and act against each other. Upstairs in Committee the assumption always was that the Board and the Commissioners were so much one that you
could not possibly have an appeal from one to the other; hence, a large number of Clauses have been put in providing for arbitration in one form or another. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot upstairs in Committee say that the Board and the Commissioners are one, and then downstairs in the House say that, unless we overload the Bill with Amendments on every possible point where it is conceivable that two lunatics might quarrel, the whole scheme will be wrecked. I rather deprecate adding a number of unnecessary Amendments to an already lengthy and complicated Bill, and I hope that this is not going to be done very much more.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation on power of Board to give financial assistance.)

"Notwithstanding anything in Section nineteen (Application of Electricity (Supply) Acts to Board) or any other provisions of this Act, the Board shall not exercise any of the powers conferred on authorised undertakers by Section five of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, and accordingly the Board shall not lend money to, or subscribe for, any securities issued by, or guarantee, or join in guaranteeing the payment of interest on any money borrowed or securities issued by a joint electricity authority."—[Sir James Grant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir JAMES GRANT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is obviously necessary that some such Clause should be introduced, because, under Clause 19, the Board will be constituted as authorised undertakers, and, under Section 5 of the Act of 1922, authorised undertakers may give financial assistance to a joint authority. It would be clearly unfair that the Board should be able to advance out of its own income funds or out of funds guaranteed by the national Exchequer money to a joint authority to compete with other undertakings. This question was discussed very shortly in Committee upstairs, but it is not quite clear from the Attorney-General's reply whether he fully appreciated the object which my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall) had in raising it. I hope that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to the point and that we may have from him a. more sympathetic reply.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to Second the Motion.
Under the present law authorised undertakers in the area of an authority may subscribe, in fact do subscribe, to the funds required by the joint authority; but it would be unfair if the funds guaranteed by the Public Exchequer should be advanced by the Board to a joint authority to compete with other undertakings. Particularly would it be unfair if the Board should devote its own income fund, or the fund which it may raise under the guarantee, for purposes which would enable the joint authority to compete with other undertakers from whom the Board have provided these funds. Under Clause 19 of the Bill the Board will be constituted as authorised undertakers. That, of course, is necessary for several reasons under the Bill. This possible application of that status arises under Section 5 of the Act of 1922, which enables authorised undertakers to give financial assistance to the joint authority. While there is good ground for giving the Board the status of authorised undertakers in many respects, it does not seem to be necessary, and indeed it can be shown to be unfair, that they should exercise that particular power of giving financial assistance to the joint authority. I do not see that the adoption of this new Clause can in any way imperil the work of the Board in the carrying out of its proper functions under the Bill. It is merely a safeguard to prevent the abuse of those functions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I rather hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, because I cannot help thinking that it is an illustration of the very danger which the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee), who knows a great deal about these electrical matters, was afraid of, namely, overloading the Bill with a great deal of unnecessary matter in order to meet what are really wholly imaginary fears. In the first place, it is at least very doubtful whether the Board has the power which is here supposed to be expressly taken away from them. The power given by the 1922 Act to authorised undertakers is given only to undertakers whose area is situated wholly or partly within a joint electricity district. It is in the highest degree doubtful whether it would be held that the Board, whose area extends over the
whole country, comes within that definition. Secondly, there is not the slightest reason to apprehend that the Board, which is constituted for wholly different purposes, would set about trying to lend money to joint electricity authorities, of which there are three scattered over the country, although there may be more later on. As to the danger that it would lend money which was under a Treasury guarantee, the answer is, of course, that if there were any such danger apprehended by the Treasury, which is the guardian of the public purse, it has express power to limit its guarantee and to impose conditions, and it would very soon see to it that money was not used for purposes wholly alien to the purpose for which the Board was set up. Both on the ground that the Board would not conceivably do it if it could, and that it could not do it if it would, it is unnecessary to have this new Clause.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: My right hon. and learned Friend, in replying to the hon. and learned Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), adopted the same line of argument which is familiar to all who sat through our protracted proceedings in Standing Committee on the Bill. One sentence of the right hon. Gentleman was: "There is no reason to apprehend that the Board will lend money." Will it be any defence, if the Board in fact lends money to a joint authority and all the other authorities are violently protesting, that that was not the intention or the spirit of the Bill, and if they refer back to the proceedings in this House and to the words of the learned Attorney-General to the effect that there was no reason to apprehend that this thing would be done? Will that be held to be a proper defence of the rights and privileges of those people who at that time protested against such an action? I rather think not. The fact is that the Board will become an authorised undertaker, and, being that, the Board will have the privileges which attach to an authorised undertaker, in addition to the duties and obligations imposed on the Board under this Bill.
In these circumstances, is it right or reasonable or honest that we should set up a Board which operates in a dual capacity—in the capacity, first, of
approving schemes, and, having approved the schemes, to have the right to make advances to the joint electricity authority which is to be set up in three parts of the country, and this Board to have the power to make advances for the purposes of the joint electricity authority, who are to regulate, if we are to judge by the joint electricity authorities which have already been established, as to the operations of many of the authorised undertakers operating within the area of those undertakings? I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will pay some slight attention to the pressing arguments advanced from this side of the House by his political friends and supporters, rather than always advance as a reason against our arguments the arguments of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I cannot help thinking that the statement made by the learned Attorney-General confirms the necessity for having this new Clause, or something like it. It may not be necessary to have these exact words. The learned Attorney-General expressed doubts about the Board having the power. When it is a question of setting up important regulations, surely, if there is any doubt as to whether power is given to the Board, there cannot be the slightest harm in putting in a Clause limiting the powers that are desired. The Attorney-General is undoubtedly desirous that these powers shall not be given, but if he, with all his legal knowledge, is not certain whether the Board are or are not empowered in the way suggested, surely now is the time to make it perfectly plain? Too many voluminous Bills go through this House with ambiguous terms in them. When it is acknowledged that there is an ambiguity, surely it is advisable to put the matter right when the Bill is passing through the House? We had protracted debates on the Bill in Committee, and we do not desire a repetition of these protracted debates here. At the same time we do not want the Government to think that we are less desirous now of seeing alterations made in the Bill. Some of us are in deadly opposition to the Bill; I am myself. If we do not prolong the proceedings I hope the Government will not decide against giving us reasonable Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. HERBERT: If I understand aright the position of the learned Attorney-General, it is that he does not think it advisable that the power which we seek to prohibit by this Clause should be exercised, that if the Board wish to exercise the power it is doubtful whether they have it, and that they would be unlikely to exercise the power if they had it. Therefore, his only objection to accepting the new Clause is that it lengthens the Bill. There is here a point of very considerable importance to the State. That is the question of the expenditure of public money by a statutory body without any control by Parliament. The Attorney-General, I know, would be opposed to anything of that kind taking place, and he has suggested that the Treasury would have power to withhold their guarantee and so prevent the expenditure of money uncontrolled by Parliament. But may I point out that this body will have two funds which it can use? One is the fund which it gets from the Treasury. The other is a fund which it does not get from the Treasury but which it gets from the various undertakings within an area. What happens is quite obvious. If there is going to be a wish to spend money in this way, all that this particular statutory body has to do, in order to evade the control of Parliament and the Treasury, is to say that it is spending the money not out of what is guaranteed by the Government but out of the other funds, and the funds obtained in that way being thus depleted, the Treasury will have no good reason for withholding the money which may be necessary for expenditure on other purposes. If the learned Attorney-General has no serious objection to this new Clause, apart from the statement that it may add somewhat to the length of the Bill, he should, in the interests of Parliament generally and of our old traditions with regard to the control of expenditure, accept this very moderate and very useful Amendment, which at any rate can do no particular harm even according to the Attorney- General's own views on the, subject.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next proposed New Clause—[Advances to be made by intending purchasing authority]—is out
of order. It seems to me to impose a possible charge on the rates which cannot be done on the Report Stage of a Bill.

Sir J. NALL: May I submit, Sir, that the proposed New Clause imposes no charge on the public Exchequer, but deals only with the relationship between local authorities and the undertakings controlled by companies in their areas?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not say that it imposed any charge on the public Exchequer, but it imposes a charge or possible charge on the rates. It would he out of order to impose a charge or a possible charge on the rates on the Report Stage of the Bill. Sub-section (4) of the proposed New Clause clearly contemplates an additional charge on the rates.

Mr. HERBERT: May I, with all respect to your ruling, Sir, suggest that that particular sub-section although it forms part of the proposed New Clause is not the most important part. The question of obliging notice to be given, as to whether powers are to be exercised or not, is of very considerable importance, and I do not know if, in these circumstances, you, Sir, would allow the proposed New Clause to be submitted omitting Sub-section (4). I suggest it is of some importance that notice should be given where there is an intention to exercise this right.

Mr. BALFOUR: May I direct your attention, Sir, to the wording of Subsection (5) of the proposed New Clause which says that money borrowed in this way shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of the local authority and shall not in any way enter into the debt arrangements of the borough—clearly indicating that the advances to be made and the service of those advances as to interest and so forth, will be met out of the undertaking, that the charge will be on the undertaking and that no charge is imposed on the rates. As I understand it, this is a convenience Clause to enable the purchasing authority to say in advance, "You may go on and expend, and we will make the advance but you will have to take charge of the service of the debt, and the interest on that money." I think, with great respect, that in these circumstances the Clause does not impose any charge on the rates, but is a mere matter of convenience.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I point out that my hon. Friend who has just spoken only read down to the middle of the sub-section which he cited. The proposed new Clause does not say merely that money borrowed under this Section shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt, but that it shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt
for the purposes of any limitation of borrowing under the enactments relating to borrowing by the local authority.
In other words, it can be borrowed in addition to the total amount which may otherwise be raised. If hon Members look at the earlier part of Sub-section (5) they will find the words
The raising of money for the purpose of advances under this Section shall be a purpose for which a local authority may borrow.
It is quite clear that the result would be to impose a liability on the borough which, if not met out of other sources, would be a liability on the rates.

Mr. BALFOUR: May I make myself quite clear? I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will acquit me of any intention of stopping deliberately at any particular word in the proposed new Clause. I think my right hon. and learned Friend has not quite understood the meaning of this Clause. Quite clearly if a local authority gives notice for the purchase of an undertaking and makes arrangements to carry on that undertaking, there must be something which will enable them technically to barrow the money without interfering with the loan arrangements of their borough. I think it is clear that the whole service of any debt so incurred will be a charge on the undertaking, and that is why specific arrangements are made in this Clause to overcome the difficulty which would arise if the local authority had power to give notice in advance, but had no power to say, "Go on and expend; we will make advances to you, and you, the undertaker, will cover the interest." That is the point involved. The purpose of the Clause is to give specific power to the local authority to raise these moneys, but the raising of the moneys is not in any way to affect the loan arrangements of the borough, and the undertaker will have to take care of the service of the loan.

Mr. SPEAKER: The purpose of the Clause may be quite excellent. On that point I prefer to say nothing, but it is clear that Sub-sections (4) and (5) contemplate a possible charge on the rates, whether it be large or little. My duty is to follow the Rules of the House, and I cannot allow a proposal to impose a possible charge on the rates, simply because it is a little one.

Mr. BALFOUR: I submit that this point would be met if the proposed New Clause were amended by the addition of the words
provided that no charge shall be put on the rates clue to the operation of this Section.
That would make it quite clear.

Sir J. NALL: May I ask you, Sir, whether you would allow me to move the first three Sub-sections as the proposed New Clause?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so. It would be incomplete without some financial arrangement.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Tribunal of appeal.)

(1) For the purposes in this Act mentioned, a tribunal of appeal (hereinafter called "the tribunal") shall be constituted, consisting of five members appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

(2) Each member of the tribunal shall be appointed for a term of five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove for inability or other proper cause any member of the tribunal.

(4) Each member of the tribunal shall be entitled to such remuneration as the Treasury from time to time may fix.

(5) The tribunal may provide offices and such clerks, officers, and servants as may be necessary, who shall be paid such salaries as may be approved by the Treasury.

(6) The tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals brought before them under this Act.

(7) The tribunal may from time to time, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make regulations as to the procedure to be followed on appeals to the tribunal, including the time and notice of appeal, and as to the fees to be paid by appellants and other parties.

(8) Any order of the tribunal may be enforced by the High Court as if it were an order of that Court.

(9) The salaries or fees payable to the members of the tribunal and the fees and establishment expenses of the tribunal shall, so far as they are not defrayed out of fees
paid to the tribunal, be paid in the same manner as expenses or estimated expenses of the Electricity Commissioners are payable under Section twenty-nine of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as amended by Section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922. —[Sir J. Nall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to clarify and put into definite form in the Bill, a system of appeal to which any party who may be aggrieved may resort in certain circumstances. There is some inconsistency between the Bill as it is drawn and the announcement made of the Government's intention at an earlier date. The Government's intention as announced in the Prime Minister's speech was to set up a public trust similar to the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks Board. The difference between the constitution of the body proposed in the Bill and the constitution of those authorities will be raised on another Amendment, but the important point in this particular connection is that those public authorities are charged with administering their own property and may not interfere with the property of any other authority or undertaker unless they come to this House and obtain statutory permission to do so. They must promote a Private Bill or, in certain circumstances, a Provisional Order, or, in certain other circumstances, a special Order, and the party whose property is to be expropriated or controlled by a public trust of that kind has access to this House through the Private Bill procedure, the Provisional 'Order procedure and so forth. In every case they have an opportunity of being heard and of securing a decision from an independent tribunal.
The Board to be set up under this Bill will be able to adopt schemes which, after their adoption, will have statutory form. In other words, for the first time in our history as far as I can find out, a public body will be able to adopt a scheme or series of schemes affecting the properties and indeed the statutory obligations of other authorities by the mere adoption of their own ideas without submitting them to anybody else. When this matter was considered in Committee upstairs, the objection was met to some extent by allowing a very restricted form of appeal
or arbitration in relation to certain financial matters. There are very severe limitations as to the category of appeals, as to the kind of cases that can be taken to appeal, and, indeed, as to the scope of the arbitrator himself in making an award. This question arises in different forms on the different Clauses of the Bill. If this public authority is to have the power intended in the Bill of interfering in this way with the conduct of the business of other authorities, many of them operating under Statute, and if we sanction this grave departure from our constitution I practice hitherto of allowing authorities in such circumstances to appeal to Parliament or to some other independent tribunal, it seems only fair that we should put in some adequate and expeditious substitute whereby aggrieved parties may have their grievances heard with some prospect of adjustment if they prove those grievances.
The precedent which I have followed in this proposed New Clause is that of the London Building Acts and the words on the Paper are copied from the London Building Act, 1894. It was said in Committee upstairs that any tribunal of the sort required should be simple and inexpensive. If one searches the records of tribunals and appeals generally in this country there will scarcely be found anything more effective or cheaper in its administration than the appeal tribunal set up under the London Building Acts. That body of three men—I suggest five here—costs only some £500 a year, and it has had the advantage of being definite body, definitely established to hear all cases which may arise within its scope. It has established precedents and case law which operate to guide future appellants. In the Bill as it is drafted all kinds of arbitrators may be appointed. Different men may be appointed to hear cases of the same kind in different parts of the country at the same time. They, as individuals, may come to opposite decisions on the same questions at the same time in different parts of the country. That is not calculated to assist the smooth working of the scheme under the Bill.
The object of the Clause is to set up a definite tribunal, not in an expensive form, not with expensive procedure, but a definitely appointed tribunal which, having come to a decision on a particular
kind of case, will have regard to that decision in future cases. If this proposal be adopted, after the first two or three hearings of appeals of the kind contemplated the need for further appeals will rapidly disappear, because the further decisions of the tribunal will become obvious. All parties concerned will then be guided in their actions by a desire to avoid the trouble of bringing further appeals on points of principle which have already been settled. I earnestly suggest to the Government that a proposal of this kind, although they may vary it in detail, is one which they ought to adopt and one which would go a long way to meet some of the objections which have been raised. The Minister of Transport recently received a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce—at which I was unable to be present, although I ought to have been there. A tribunal of this kind would go a long way to meet the need which was urged by that body. If no such provision be made, the Bill will leave this House with a few scattered and inconclusive provisions in various Clauses for a very limited form of arbitration in a few specified cases—an arbitration which could only be claimed by a very limited number of those who might need it.
That would be contrary to the whole of our constitutional practice and procedure. For the first time in history we should deny to municipalities, county councils, statutory undertakings of all kinds, as well as to private individuals, the ordinary facility which at present exists whereby they are entitled to appeal to an independent tribunal, when powers of the kind contemplated are being sought in the ordinary process of Private Bill legislation or provision order procedure. The principle of this thing goes far beyond the scope of this Bill and the intentions of the Government in relation to the Board and the possible functioning of the Board. This denying of access to Parliament and of any right of appeal against the arbitrary decisions of a new public trust, not itself directly answerable to Parliament or amenable to the Ministry of the day, is an entirely new departure, and I urge upon the House that it raises a constitutional question of the gravest kind, which ought not to be summarily dismissed on the plea that some form of arbitration has been provided in the Bill.
I hope to show, later on, that that arbitration is very limited and ineffective in many respects, but I should be out of order in doing so now. I urge upon the Government that, either in the form in which I propose it or in some rather different form, a right of appeal to a properly constituted and permanent authority, which can set up precedents and case law, should be adopted in this case, and it would go a long way towards removing some of the very earnestly felt apprehensions as to the possible working of the Bill. With regard to the consequential Clause, it may well be that the Government would object to that, even if they accepted the first Clause. I should be quite prepared to discuss that in detail, if the main principle were accepted on this first Clause, as the consequential Clause goes beyond the actual Bill, but I hope the Government in the meantime will indicate some intention of meeting the very real desire that we should have an effective but inexpensive process of appeal.

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so as one of the strong supporters of the Bill, but as one who thinks that the tribunal of appeal has not got wide enough powers. I was one of the Committee that appeared with the Chambers of Commerce before the Minister, and this was one of the points which we urged, namely, that anyone who considered himself injured by any order of the new authority should be in a position to go before a court of appeal to get damages, but it need not interfere with the working of the Act. The court of appeal would be limited to giving merely pecuniary remuneration for damages incurred, and anyone injured by any provision would have the power of going before the court of appeal and putting his case before it. I hope very much that the Government will see their way to meet this request and give us a wider court of appeal.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The mover of this Clause was in fact moving a Clause which merely purported to set up a tribunal of appeal, but he quite frankly admitted that his new Clause was designed to raise what he himself described as "matters of the gravest Constitutional importance," and radically to alter the provisions of the Bill, because,
as he indicated, he desired that anybody who was affected in any way by any provision of the Bill should have a right to have an appeal to this tribunal. This is a matter which was thrashed out at very great length over two days' meetings in Committee upstairs. It was exhaustively debated there, and the provisions as to appeal which are contained in the Bill as it comes to this House are provisions which the overwhelming majority of the Committee—I think a three to one, or thereabouts, majority — thought were adequate and at the same time were the maximum which could he given if the Bill was to be a practical success. My hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir A. Benn), who seconded the new Clause, said—and I entirely accept it, of course—that he spoke as a supporter and friend of the Bill, but I am not quite sure that he realises into what company he has been drawn in seconding this Clause.
I would like, if I might, without going outside the Amendment, to tell the House what the actual position is. It is quite true that when the Bill was originally before this House there were no substantial provisions giving a right of appeal. There was a right to go in some cases to the Electricity Commissioners and in some other cases to the Minister of Transport, but there was no appeal to an independent tribunal. The Committee thought, and the Government agreed with the view, that it was desirable that in certain cases, where there was a risk of injustice being done, an appeal should be provided, and those who have not noticed the changes in the Bill since it has been in Committee, arid who only go by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend in moving this Clause, may be a little surprised to know how far the Committee has already gone with the assent of the Government. There are two great divisions into which this scheme falls; the first is the setting up of the scheme, and the second is the operation of the scheme when once it has been approved.
So far as the setting up of the scheme is concerned, that is contained in the first four Clauses of the Bill, and the provision which we now have in Clause 4 provides that, first of all, the Electricity Commissioners are to prepare a scheme, that then the Board is to announce the scheme, and to give everybody an opportunity of
making any representations which they see fit upon it; that the Board shall consider those representations and, so far as they think it right, shall modify or amend the scheme; and that then anybody on whom any obligation is imposed by the scheme as passed by the Board is to have a right of appeal to an independent arbitrator, not, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, anybody who may be quite unqualified—

Sir J. NALL: I did not say that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: At any rate, let me tell the House who he is in fact. The independent arbitrator is to be selected by the Minister from a panel set up by the Lord Chancellor, and that panel is confined to people who are qualified to hold judicial office; that is to say, that they are taken from the same class of people as are to-day capable of being appointed to be Judges. That is the type of man to whom the appeal goes, and there is further express provision that, if there is any point on which it is desirable to have expert assistance, the arbitrator may call in assessors who shall assist him in regard to any technical questions. That seems to the Government, and seemed to the Committee, to be as far as we could safely and adequately go to meet the position of safeguarding those whose interests were affected. If the appeal were widened, as the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Clause desires, so that anyone who was in any way affected by the scheme should have a right of appeal, that would no doubt go a long way to meet the views of those who regard this Bill as a bad Bill, because it would effectively prevent it ever becoming a practical Measure, for there is hardly anybody in the country who is not affected by this Bill.
There is, first of all, not only every owner of a selected or a non-selected station—because the non-selected people are just as likely to feel aggrieved by, not having the privilege of being selected stations as the other people are who are invited to become selected stations—but, in addition to that, every district through which a main transmission line does or does not go is undoubtedly affected, and every consumer of electricity is undoubtedly affected, and if we were to allow everybody who was affected by the Bill to have a right of appeal to a tribunal
of five persons, who were to sit with clerks and offices and all the rest of it, the result would be that it would be not in the lifetime of anybody in this House that we should see the scheme effectively working. That may be the desire of those who think the Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill, and who are not ashamed to say so, but it is not the desire of those who wish to make this a real contribution to the improvement of the supply of electricity in this country.
So much for the setting up of a scheme, and I hope I have shown that we have safeguarded the position and that it would be useless, as well as fatal, to extend the appeal more widely. But when the scheme is operating, again there are elaborate provisions for appeal, in Clause after Clause, where there is any risk of harm being done if an appeal is not allowed. For instance, in Clause 5, where there are provisions for requiring extension or alteration of plant, there is an express appeal again given to the qualified arbitrator with or without assessors. In Clause 8, which is the provision with regard to the acquisition of main transmission lines, again an appeal is given. In Clause 9, a very important Clause which deals with standardisation, an appeal is given. In Clause 10, which is the Clause which gives the Board the right to require and make provisions that the whole supply shall be taken from the Board, again an appeal is given. In Clause 14—the very important Clause dealing with non-selected stations, which gives a right in certain circumstances of closing down a station—again an appeal is given; and so, wherever there is a danger of rights being prejudicially affected, a right of appeal is provided.
In addition to the rights of appeal to the qualified arbitrator, with or without assessors, there is also, as the House will realise, a number of technical questions raised in various provisions of the Bill, and the Government do not think, and the Committee did not think, that a legal tribunal of this kind was in the least the most suitable for dealing with technical questions. Therefore, we have provided again a series of appeals to the Electricity Commissioners in certain cases, and in other cases to the Minister of Transport. In other eases, again, we have provided that certain things cannot happen unless the matter is brought
before Parliament. We have varied the kind of appeal according to the kind of provision with which we are dealing. Where it is a technical question, we have given an appeal to a technical body, where there is a question raising great questions of public interest, we have given an appeal to Parliament, and where there is a question raising financial questions, we have given an appeal to the tribunal to which I have already made reference. We believe that, in doing that, we have fully met all the just causes of complaint which might arise in the working of this scheme, and we believe also that, if we were to depart from that and accept the proposal now laid before the House, the result would be entirely to wreck the whole scheme, which, I know, is very far from the wish of the seconder of the Clause, but which, no doubt, would not unduly disappoint the hon. and gallant Member who moved it. On those grounds, it is impossible for the Government to accept this suggested tribunal, and I hope the House will endorse the decision of its Committee and uphold the limited rights of appeal provided by the Bill as it comes before us now.

5.0 P.M.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Undeterred by the fate which has fallen on the hon. Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Benn), who supported this Amendment, I want to say that, although I am a supporter of the I should like to see slight alterations made in it. I am inclined to think that the Attorney-General has made it, clear that the widening of the scope of arbitration can hardly be expected. But with regard to what he said in reply to my hon. Friend with regard to the nature of the tribunal to be set up under the Bill, I cannot see how he can think he is likely to get so consistent a series of decisions on points by referring them to individuals in different parts of the country, each of whom will be supported probably by technical assessors. I have had some experience of the tribunals referred to by the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment. They, of course, got a body of information together which was of value to them in maintaining the consistency of the decisions to which they came. I cannot help thinking it would he worth while the Attorney-General considering whether
on this particular point there is not a danger, for however qualified the legal arbitrators and assessors may be, they are bound to differ in their qualifications, because they will come from separate districts of the country. While it might be argued that they will have special knowledge of those districts, I do not think it will be so useful as having a body of decisions maintained on single and definite lines by a single tribunal. I, therefore, venture on this point to differ from the Government, although I agree with the Bill in its entirety.

Mr. HARRIS: I am amazed to find this proposal emanating from hon. Members opposite—from a group who have claimed to stand for economy. Here is on the Paper, printed, a proposal to set up a tribunal with a staff and clerks and offices and with fees and salaries to be provided by the Treasury. Here is a proposal, at a time when we are told it is what the country is suffering from, to make officials and to create yet one more Department. I quite agree with the learned Attorney-General that his proposal at any rate does not propose to set up a permanent bureaucracy. But here is. a suggestion to create another Department purely for the purpose of hearing appeals, to encourage delay and impede the construction of this scheme that is so long overdue. My one criticism of the Bill is that there is to be a Board. We have Commissioners, and we are now to have a Board under the Bill. The hon. Member who moved this new Clause is not satisfied with the Board of officials to be created, but wants to see super imposed on this structure another body.

Sir J. NALL: That is an absolute misrepresentation of what I said.

Mr. HARRIS: I was not attempting to give the hon. and gallant Member's speech, but what the result of his proposal would be. It is the wrong way to pass legislation. The only justification for this Bill is the urgent need of the country and the necessity for our electrification being brought up to date. The very fact of a proposal of this kind being put on the Paper is a proof that hon. Members advocating it are not really in earnest in their desire to obtain it.

Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member who spoke last seems to have misapprehended
the speech of the Mover of the Clause. I thought he made it particularly clear that, although administration was to be set up with offices and a staff, yet the words were almost the same as those in the previous Act and that the total cost would be £500 per annum. Of course, I quite understand the conception of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) of having power to appoint officers and engage a staff is quite different from that of hon. Members on these benches and there is no doubt he could run to great expense. You do not need to incur any greater expenditure than has already been agreed to. I think there is only one solitary issue proposed under this new Clause. Does the Attorney-General presume in favour merely of facilitating the activities of the executive, or does he presume in favour of protecting the liberties of the people? That is the issue. It is the sole issue. If there is to be any mistake made at all, am I riot right in saying that we should make the mistake in favour of the preservation of the liberties of our people? If there is to be any mistake at all, it should be on the side not of facilitating the activities of the executive functioning over the people, but rather to make sure that the activities of the executive should in no way prejudicially affect the rights of the people. I have not heard from the Attorney-General anything that shows the slightest anxiety in that direction. I would quite seriously impress on the attention of the Attorney-General the necessity for keeping in mind more and more the limitation of the activities of the executive and the preservation of the liberties of the people.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think that the Attorney-General's Clause as it stands has largely met the issue that was raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The only thing is the point raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) that there will be a lack of continuity in decisions. You may get a heavier award in one place than in another and that will create a feeling of injustice. I think the Clause carries a good deal of the implication mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). It seems like erecting a new Court of Justice and it will be a very
expensive business. If the hon. Member for Bethnal Green is under the delusion that this Bill will cheapen distribution, then he is mistaken. You might as well say that by amalgamating all the distilling companies you would cheapen their product. There will be no savings here whatever. I never can understand why there should be the necessity for a Board as well as for Commissioners. I have seen nothing like this Bill except an advertisement that I saw in a newspaper stating that the advertiser wanted a strong horse to do all the country minister's work.

Mr. HERBERT: I only want to make an observation on something that fell from the Attorney-General in his reply. One of his objections to this Clause was that if it were to be put in the Bill, there would be a difficulty in working the Bill because of the immense number of bodies and people affected and the number of people who would have the right of appeal to this tribunal. I merely want to point out that the Attorney-General's own words prove that this Bill, as some of us said on Second Beading, is interfering with the rights of many individuals and corporations without giving them the opportunity of an appeal to Parliament and of being heard by Parliament in the way in which they always have been heard in the past in the case of Private Bills.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Your Clause does not do that.

Mr. HERBERT: That was not really the point of my argument. I was endeavouring to point out that the Attorney-General's own words referred to one of our objections to the principle of this Bill. The Amendment may not be perfect, but at any rate it is an attempt to do something to modify that particular blot on the Bill. There are many more things I should like to say in support of this Amendment, but I realise that an appeal to the Attorney-General will not be much use. I propose therefore, in pursuance of the statement I made in moving the first Amendment to-day, to do what I can to shorten discussion, and I shall not be debarred by the somewhat offensive and sneering remarks of the learned Attorney-General in regard to promises of this kind coming from un-
expected quarters. As far as I am concerned, that kind of thing is like water on the duck's back. But, if I may venture to say so, I hope the Attorney-General will endeavour to treat those who are moving Amendments with a little more sympathy, and, possibly, I am not going too far when I say, a little more politeness.

Commander BELLAIRS: I think there is a good deal of point in the criticism which was made by an hon. Friend of mine, that there is likely to be a lack of continuity in the decisions of gentlemen selected from the panel, and I would like to know what is likely to be the size of the panel from which the gentlemen will be selected. In the first place, a panel will be set up by the Lord Chancellor, and, in the second place, the appointment will be made by the Minister of Transport. It is very likely that this Bill may be used for the purpose of bringing about nationalisation schemes. I am very much interested in trying to extract from the Attorney-General whether there will be any limit imposed on the size of the panels, so that we may know who are likely to he the men selected.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The size of the panel will depend entirely, of course, on the multiplicity of appeals. If it turns out that there will be comparatively few, as I hope, then a panel of two or three may easily do the work. In answer to the apprehension of my hon. Friend the Member for the Spelthorne Division (Sir P. Pilditch), it would be quite true that if this tribunal were dealing with grave points of law, we might very well have to meet the point, but he will see they are almost entirely financial matters. The sort of question will be whether or not compensation ought to be given for a particular obligation; whether or not the cost of generating electricity at non-selected stations is shown to be cheaper; what sort of cost is incurred by standardisation and other points of that character, which are purely financial points. If a scheme is being put up, for example, for the South of England, and another for Scotland, it will not be necessary to wait until all the decisions are taken for the South of England before getting on with the Scottish scheme. It will be possible to have an arbitration regarding any objection or any claim for compensation
with regard to Scotland, at the same time that someone else is discussing the question of compensation with regard to a particular case in the South of England. It was with that object in our minds that we put our proposal before the Committee, and the Committee thought it was wiser to take the plan in the form we have put it.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to put this point? Sub-section (3) of Clause 4 says
if any authorised undertakers on whom obligations are imposed by the scheme consider that the carrying out of those obligations would he prejudicial.
What was in my mind was that those few words involve a good deal. I think they involve questions of right and of law. If you are going to set up—

Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Are we allowed to make two speeches on Report?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I thought the hon. Member was asking a question. He cannot make another speech.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I do not want to do that. I wish to ask whether these matters do not involve considerable questions of right and questions of law, and whether it would be possible to get the same effective consideration of these matters if referred to a number of individuals throughout the country, rather than to a body of people who would collect records of their previous decisions, and get together such a body of decisions as would prevent the further raising of matters.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If I might be allowed to answer the question, my answer would be, that as far as the questions of right are involved, they would be dealt with by the Board when they got the representations put before them as to the scheme as drafted by the Electricity Commissioners. The Board have to consider everybody's representations before confirming the scheme, and there is the proviso that if a particular undertaker, on whom a particular obligation is imposed, thinks that he is prejudiced by carrying out that obligation, he can then go to the tribunal, and the tribunal, as my hon. Friend will see, gives him financial compensation in a case
where it is thought advisable to do so. I do not think any question of law is involved there.

Sir J. NALL: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider it consistent with English law that the Board should be judges in their own cause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know whether that is meant for a question, but the answer is that they are not parties to any cause.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: We have heard from the Attorney-General that this Bill affects an enormous number of public and private interests, and in listening to the discussion all the enthusiasm for the Bill seems to come from the opposite side. One might think it was a Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). Undoubtedly there is a good deal of uneasiness in regard to it on this side of the House, and those who understand the subject best feel the greatest amount of uneasiness. Such a tribunal as is proposed in this Clause is nonpolitical, and would ensure continuity, and the result of its action in a short time would be that the number of appeals would very greatly lessen. I regret very much that the Attorney-General could not see fit to accept the Clause. I, personally, should like to see all ether appeals cut out of the Bill, and just one tribunal appointed.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The last speaker suggests that he prefers this new Clause because the tribunal would be nonpolitical. I would like to ask him how he makes out that it would be nonpolitical, since the appointment of the five members would be by the Lord Chancellor, the same person who would set up the panel from whom the arbitrator would be appointed under the Bill as it stands. The last speaker also suggested that the silence on these benches was in a sense ominous. It was obvious he was not a member of the Committee, or he would not comment on the silence of Members on these benches. The hon. Member who referred to the Attorney-General was also not a member of the Committee, or he would not have protested against the sentiments of the Attorney-General when replying to the Mover of this Clause. Those who sat in the Commitee and saw hour after hour deliberately wasted by those who are definitely opposed to the Bill—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think we had better confine ourselves to the Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was going to say that the Members who were wasting the time were then pleading for the kind of tribunal the Bill now contains. Now that we have reached the Report stage, they are coming along with further and absolutely destructive Amendments to hold up the Bill, and to turn down the proposals they were making in Committee. There is only one object behind this Clause, and the Attorney-General clearly indicated what that object was. Those who have spoken on this Clause, with the exception, perhaps, of one Scottish Member, are all vitally interested in preserving what at present to them is a very valuable position. They have no desire for this Bill to become operative either at an early or late date; consequently they propose Amendments here which they know would hold up the Bill for an object of this Clause, as of so many indefinite amount of time. The definite object of this Clause as of so many Amendments which they moved in Committee, and will move on the Report stage, is to hold up the Bill, and prevent it from becoming an Act at an early date. Although we on these benches have no cause to love a hybrid Bill of this description, we at least want to see what benefits will be forthcoming as a result of the first instalment of national organisation. At all events, we prefer the arbitration proposals already inserted in the Bill, and not the destructive or obstructive Amendments moved.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next two Clauses (Appeal from Electricity Commissioners to Tribunal) and (Administration of the law relating to the supply of electricity) are consequential.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 23 of Act of 1909.)

"In Section twenty-three (Prohibiting unauthorised undertakers from competing with statutory undertakers) of the Act of 1909, the following proviso shall be substituted for the first proviso to that section:
Provided that this Section shall not prevent any company or person whose business is not primarily that of the supply of electricity to consumers and who has not installed or provided, or is not using any greater amount of plant or machinery for the generation of electri-
city than is reasonably necessary for such business, from supplying to any other company or person any electricity, which is generated by the first-mentioned company or person by means of the said plant or machinery and is in excess of the electricity which the first-mentioned company or person may from time to time require for the purposes of such business."—[Sir J. Nall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Since this Clause was put on the Order Paper, it has been suggested to me that it might have a result, or series of results, not intended in the draft, and, therefore, as I have said before, we are not at all bound by the exact form of words. The principle is the thing, and it can be very shortly explained. Section 23 of the Act of 1909 sought to prevent unauthorised undertakers competing for the supply of electricity with the established undertakers in the locality. It does not, in fact, achieve that result, but there are certain instances in the country, and there are indications that these instances will be largely multiplied in the near future, where private plant is used for the purpose of giving a supply to people who are in no way associated or connected with the owners of the station, in competition with the authorised established undertaker in the vicinity. There are certain instances where distribution may be made along the same street, parallel and competing with the established undertaking. It was that kind of contingency which Section 23 of the Act of 1909 sought to avoid. It is only lately that its failure is becoming apparent. It is to meet the legitimate case which arises in those circumstances that this Clause has been put down.
As the present law is functioning, it would appear to be the case that the owner of any cinema could put in a 200-kilowatt plant, say, and sell 180 out of the 200 kilowatts to his neighbours, in competition with the electricity undertaking of a local authority or local company. If that is allowed to go on, the whole system of authorised electricity undertakings is open to frustration, for we shall get a series of private plants competing with established, authorised plants. It has been intimated to me that the actual wording of the proposed new Clause might interfere with some quite proper co-operative arrangements
come to by dock authorities, colliery companies or other large firms who find it convenient to supply a neighbour from their private mains. Cases of that kind should be considered and allowed for on their merits. The Clause is intended to deal with obvious abuses, which are growing, and which, if allowed to go on unchecked, will have disastrous effects on the extension of authorised undertakings in certain cases. If we are to facilitate and encourage the distribution of electricity, this anomaly ought to be cleared up; the words of the Act of 1909, which appear to be insufficient to achieve the object for which they were intended, should be augmented in order that the position may he safeguarded. It is on those grounds that this Clause has been put down, and if the Government can see their way to accept it—I understand that at one time they were disposed to agree to the main principle of the thing—the words on the Paper can easily he amended to meet the views of those who take exception to it in its present form.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Motion.
It has been openly admitted by the Electricity Commissioners—I am sure they will keep my right hon. Friend right if say anything in excess of what is the fact—that when Section 23 was inserted in the Act of 1909 the intention was to prohibit the unlawful supply of electricity; in other words, a supply of electricity could not be distributed through mains along the streets except by people duly recognised by Parliament under either a special Act of Parliament or a Provisional Order. This Section 23 was specially designed to make sure that the electricity supply throughout the whole country should be directly under the control of some Parliamentary Provisional Order or Statute. The proviso was inserted, quite properly, in order that any person generating a supply of electricity slightly in excess of his own needs should not be prohibited from passing on that surplus to a neighbour. It was recognised that it was right and proper that, if a large factory or colliery found its installation was in excess of its requirements, it should be entitled to sell some part of its supply to another factory or premises. But, in fact, it was found—or, at least, it was held by certain
parties—that this proviso went much further than that, and that a supply could be furnished to some one even when miles away from the colliery olfactory. It is now freely admitted that that was not the intention of the 1909 Act, and all that we seek in this Amendment is to limit the supply from such factory or works to any company or persons in the near vicinity who can readily absorb it, and to make sure that the proprietors of works will not instal plant to be used primarily for the purpose of supplying electricity outside their premises and not primarily for use in their own works. Any words which my right hon. Friend can suggest to make sure that no injustice will be done to anyone legitimately using the right conferred by the 1909 Act and to protect the rights of factory or workshop owners who wish to co-operate or interconnect their supply, will be readily accepted by those who think with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) and myself. My right hon. Friend will remember that when this subject was debated in Committee upstairs he was good enough to say to me at the end of the day that the matter would receive consideration.
I think it is possible that the drafting of this Clause may embody some slight weaknesses, though I am not able to see them myself. If they are pointed out, and any amendment be necessary, I shall be only to glad to see the requisite modification made in another place. But what I would like is to have some indication from my right hon. Friend that he is able to take this opportunity of amending the 1909 Act so as to make its intentions clear, and not force us to go to the Law Courts for a decision. At the present moment I know of cases—I am not mentioning any names, because I think it is undesirable to mention the name of any industrial concern in this House—where many hundreds of consumers are being supplied—where mains are being laid under the streets in order to establish a business of electricity supply as an adjunct to a general industrial organisation. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that within the last two or three months several hundreds of consumers have been connected up; and it has been done with the intention of putting that industrial organisation in the position of competing
with an undertaking working under a Provisional Order, the very thing which the 1909 Act wished to avoid. All we ask is that we should not be forced into the Law Courts and subjected, to years of delay possibly, through appeals and counter-appeals, in getting a decision as to the interpretation of that Act, which, I think, is generally understood by all parties connected with the supply of electricity, but that this opportunity should be taken of making the Act quite clear.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The first observation I wish to make with regard to this proposed new Clause is that, as the House will appreciate, it has nothing whatever to do with the scheme which the present Bill seeks to set up. It is, of course, within the scope of the Bill, because the Bill is a measure to amend the law with regard to the supply of electricity; but it deals with a matter entirely outside and unconnected with the proposals which we are seeking to carry through by this Bill.

Mr. BALFOUR: I quite agree.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In bringing the Bill before the House, and in piloting it through Committee, the Government have tried to limit its operations, as far as possible, to matters which are germane to the scheme; except in one or two cases where there has been general agreement as to the desirability of amending the law, accepted on all sides. It would not be true to say of the present proposal that it is accepted on all sides, because it was dissented from and opposed in Committee, as my hon. Friend will remember, by hon. Members on his own side. We are anxious not to overload this Bill by bringing in every sort of disputable point in regard to the law relating to the supply of electricity. If I discuss the merits of the proposed new Clause I would only like to say this. The present law prohibits unauthorised undertakers from competing with statutory undertakings, but has this proviso, that the Section
shall not prevent any company or person from affording a supply of electrical energy to any other company or person where the business of the company or person affording the supply is not primarily that of the supply of electrical energy to consumers.
The effect of the proposed alteration is to add to that prohibition a qualification so as not, to prevent a supply of electricity by a person who
is not using any greater amount of plant or machinery for the generation of electricity than is reasonably necessary for such business.
My hon. Friend said, and I have no doubt sincerely said, that he wished to make the Act clear, so that people might not be forced into the Law Courts; but speaking for the moment as a lawyer, I think that if we inserted a Clause under which it were made a criminal offence for a person to supply electricity if he happened to be using a greater amount of plant or machinery for the generation of that electricity than was reasonably necessary for his business, people would be almost certain to be landed in the Courts. It would be an extraordinarily difficult thing for anybody to determine whether a particular piece of plant or machinery was or was not more than was reasonably necessary for the generation of electricity for a particular business, and, if it were, a criminal offence would be committed if they had any intention of supplying electricity to anyone else. Instead of clarifying the law, the proposed alteration makes it more difficult to understand.

Mr. BALFOUR: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept some words to this effect: "provided they shall not engage in the generation, sale and distribution of electricity in competition with existing undertakings"?—or anything my right hon. Friend likes, in his own words, as long as it will make clear what the Act of 1909 means.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: At present I am only attempting to deal with the words on the Paper, which make the Act of 1909 not clearer but less clear. The objection I have to putting in any alteration is the one I have mentioned—that this matter has nothing to do with the scheme in the Bill, and that if there is to be any amendment of the law outside the particular proposals of the Bill it ought to be an amendment which is agreed upon by the parties interested and can be accepted by the House without discussion. At present nothing of that kind has been proposed in this respect, and unless general agreement is
reached by all those interested, I must say, on behalf of the Government, that I could not accept a proposal which would burden the Bill with something which has really nothing to do with it.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am very glad, indeed, that my right hon. and learned Friend has not accepted this new Clause, and I hope that he will not at any future date accept a freshly-drafted Clause having the same object. I was agreeably surprised to find that ho did not accept it, because the effect of the Clause, so far as I can see, would be to make electricity scarcer and dearer than it is now, and as that is inevitably going to be the result of the whole of this preposterous Bill, I was surprised when he did not round it off by accepting this addition. I hope very much that the law will be left where it stands under the Act of 1909. That Act seems to be quite sufficient to safeguard authorised undertakers against unreasonable competition, without stopping industrial undertakings such as collieries, which are what I have chiefly in my mind, from disposing of their surplus power.
As an outcome of the great development of the by-product industry in connection with coal mines, many collier companies in my own district, and I dare say in many others, are able to, and do, supply considerable quantities of electricity at very cheap rates. It would be nothing less than disastrous if they were unable to sell their surplus electricity, and the community in those districts would be deprived of the cheap supply which they enjoy at the present time. I attach very great importance to this matter, not only because I contend that these industrial undertakings ought to be allowed to go on selling electricity as they do now, but because there is some faint hope that if they do, we shall still in the future have some producers of electricity who will be free from the strangling grasp of the army of camouflaged Government officials who will be called into existence by this Bill, and that there will thus be some hope for the future development of the industry.

Mr. LOOKER: I welcome the decision of the Government not to accept this new Clause. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) stated that the main object of this Bill was to avoid constant
and expensive litigation which, in his view, would arise under the Government proposals. But when we look at the wording of this Clause it will be clear from the most superficial perusal that it is likely to be far more fruitful of litigation than the state of things which exists at the present time. Authorities with a surplus supply of electrical energy at the present time can supply it for any purpose for which it can be used, but this new Clause seeks to limit the power to supply that electricity, until they can prove that their plant is not reasonably in excess of the supply required for their ordinary business. I do not see how any concern can prove that to anybody, and if you are going to limit their right to dispose of their surplus power by providing that they must satisfy some tribunal that they have not extended their plant beyond what is reasonably necessary for the purposes of their business, you will prevent them extending their plant when it is necessary to meet some demand which may arise in the near future. These undertakings should not be prevented from extending their plant when it is necessary, and I hope the House will support the opposition of the Government to this new Clause.

Mr. F. LEE: The Nottingham and Derby-Power Company, with which the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment are connected, is an authorised undertaking in my constituency, but it has never attempted to supply any part of North-East Derbyshire with electricity. Large industrial concerns—collieries and iron works—have generated their own electricity, and, under the powers of the 1909 Act, have supplied their neighbours with spare energy, much to the advantage of all concerned. One very large industrial concern has laid down plant with a view to considerable developments in their own undertaking in the more or less immediate future, and for the moment they have a large surplus of power, made by waste gases from their bye-products, after supplying their own five large collieries and iron works and hundreds of their own houses. The adjoining villages are being supplied in hulk, and Chesterfield is also taking part of the supply. Should this Amendment he carried, it could he argued that this Company, which is not primarily engaged in the generation of
electricity, had a plant out of proportion to its reasonable requirements, if its present needs only were considered, and considerable litigation might ensue with the object of curbing its activities. The district is being supplied with electricity at a much lower cost than that at which the hon. Member for Hampstead is prepared to supply it, and I hope that the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government is not going to relax in any way upon the Clause as it stands.

Mr. BALFOUR: I only wish to say that the statement just made by the hon. Member for North East Derby (Mr. Lee) is not in any way an accurate representation of the facts.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Advisory Boards, etc., not to be superseded by joint electricity authorities.)

"Notwithstanding anything in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, or the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, or this Act, where an advisory board or an advisory committee has been established under those Acts or any of them for an electricity district constituted under Section five of the said Act of 1919 no joint electricity authority shall be established for that district within the period of ten years from the passing of this Act."—[Sir J. Nall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Some hon. Members will know that since the passing of the 1905 Act many expensive inquiries have been held in regard to the formation of electricity districts and the creation of joint authorities or advisory boards in those districts. Some of those inquiries have been fought out at great length and at great expense. The Attorney-General said, when replying to an earlier new Clause, that only in a few cases have joint authorities been set up. One of those joint authorities is in North Wales, but it is entirely ineffective for the reason that it has merely delegated all its powers to the power company of that district. Therefore, the joint authority is merely a local company.
In most cases joint advisory boards have been set up as in South Lancashire
and other areas. The district I am particularly concerned about is South-East Lancashire where a joint advisory, board is now fulfilling its purpose. It has progressed rapidly, and, whatever arguments may be produced as to the need for development in some parts of the country in regard to a supply of electricity, certainly they do not apply to authorities in South-East Lancashire. I know there is a feeling in some quarters that the tendency now indicated in this Bill is such that the probable result of its operation will be that the Board will find its administrative finance so involved that it must eventually devolve its duties upon the local authorities and that there will be a tendency to create more joint authorities. Where an expensive inquiry has already been held as to whether a joint authority or a joint advisory board is necessary and such an authority has been set up, it does seem unfair that the whole thing should be again reopened and another inquiry held, and all the good work of that joint authority scrapped by the precipitate setting up of a new joint authority.
The object of this Clause is to secure that where these inquiries have been held and advisory committees have been established under the Act of 1922, that position shall not be disturbed, and the progress of electrical development arrested by a new inquiry involving more expenditure and the holding up all further development of the electrical supply while the inquiry goes on. This Clause will secure that those areas which have been subjected to inquiries shall be allowed to carry on, and that they shall not have a further disturbing element introduced into their area. That is the object of this Clause, and I think it is a very reasonable one. It is a very necessary provision in some parts of the country, and I hope it will be possible for the Government to accept it.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to second the Motion.
I happen to represent a Lancashire area which has a joint advisory board and an electricity area. I think in that area there can be no doubt as to the efficiency with which the advisory board has carried out its duties. Ever since this board was formed in 1923 the consumption of electricity has increased by
50 per cent. and electricity is supplied at a price well within the estimates of the Weir Committee's Report.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The effect of this new Clause will be to render it impossible for the Board to set up electricity authorities in any areas where there has already been an inquiry. There are three areas where there are already joint electricity authorities, and there are other areas where there are at present advisory boards.

Mr. BALFOUR: The new Clause says
where an advisory board or an advisory committee has been established.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is so, and it applies to areas where inquiry has resulted in the appointment of an advisory board. Under Section 25 there is power to constitute a joint electricity authority, and this is provided for in the Bill. At this moment I am informed that there are two existing advisory boards, and they have approached the Electricity Commissioners with a view to turning themselves into a joint electricity authority. I can see no reason why it would be impossible to turn such boards into joint electricity authorities in cases where the Electricity Commissioners and those interested approve of the plan. Unless it be the purpose of this New Clause once more to hamper the Electricity Commissioners or in sonic way to express distrust of them—a distrust which I entirely refuse to share—I do not think it is necessary for the House of Commons to limit their powers by refusing to allow them to establish joint electricity authorities when they are convinced that such a step would be in the interests of the locality. They ought to be able to do this if they are satisfied that a case has been made out, and I do not think this House ought to limit their powers in this respect.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BALFOUR: The Attorney-General has mentioned two joint advisory boards which have already made a request to be turned into a joint electricity authority. I suppose they are the two Lancashire cases. I have a record of the proceedings in those two cases, and the evidence certainly does not bear out the suggestion that those advisory boards desire to be turned into a joint electricity authority. I ask the House to believe me
when I say that there has been no desire expressed by those two boards to be turned into a joint electricity authority. They have made an application, but it has proceeded no further. I would like the House to try to understand in some small measure the exact position with regard to joint advisory boards. In Yorkshire, in, I think, more than one district, in Lancashire, certainly, in more than one district, in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, and, I think, Staffordshire, joint advisory boards have been established. It may appear to the House that the establishment of a joint advisory board is a. simple matter, brought about with very little effort or trouble on the part of the parties concerned, and that it can be changed into a joint electricity authority without substantially altering its duties or functions. The fact is that the proceedings in connection with one of these boards with which I happen to be familiar commenced in January, 1922, and culminated in the setting up of a joint advisory board under an Order made under the authority of this House; but it was not until the 28th May, 1924, that that joint advisory board, comprising the representatives of all the municipal undertakings, of all the company undertakings, and of the large consumers, as laid down in previous Acts of Parliament, was entitled to function, after the disturbance caused by a series of inquiries lasting over two years.
I have here one volume of the proceedings, showing how the cases of the local authorities, the large traders, and the company interests were put by various eminent counsel, and it was finally decided that a joint electricity authority should not be set up, but that a joint advisory board was the best machinery for that large district, which had been delimited under the Act of 1919. All the procedure for delimiting the area having been gone through, and evidence having been heard as to the setting up of a joint electricity authority, the result was the setting up of a joint advisory board in 1924. Since that time the board has worked harmoniously, and has drawn together many of the threads in connection with the unification of supply in that area; and now, unless this Amendment is accepted, all that is likely to be washed out and a compulsory joint electricity authority set up, which
was proved to be the wrong way of doing it by the representations of all the parties, including the large cities, the small towns, and all the manufacturing and company interests, as recently as 1924. Is it not ridiculous to say that we will here give to the Executive a compulsory power to do what was proved to be the wrong thing as recently as 1924, as the result of inquiries which took over two years to complete, and of evidence from the very parties whom my right hon. Friend would describe as the people who should tell us that a joint authority is to be set up?
One of the members of that joint advisory board—I think I am right in saying that he was the chairman of the joint advisory board that I have in mind—is the most recently appointed Electricity Commissioner. He contributed the weight of his evidence and experience to the inquiry which resulted in setting up that joint advisory board; and my right hon. Friend says that he will not give them a 10 years' run, although the records will show that consumption has gone up by leaps and bounds, and everything has improved as rapidly as it can. Now my right hon. Friend says there is going to be set up—or, at any rate, the Executive, at any moment they may select, can set up—a joint electricity authority such as was denied after two years' laborious hearing of the evidence of all the parties interested. I plead with my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision and accept this Amendment, which is quite a reasonable one. Electricity districts have been approved in eight places in the country—namely, South-East Lancashire, South-West Midlands, North Wales and South Cheshire, Mid-Lancashire and East Midlands, Edinburgh and the Lothians, London and Home Counties, and West Midlands—and three joint electricity authorities have been set up. There are now advisory boards in, I think, three districts; while, in addition to the eight districts which have been approved, six others have been provisionally determined by the Electricity Commissioners. These joint advisory hoards are functioning well and carrying out their duties admirably. They have drawn together in a friendly and co-operative spirit all the interests in the districts concerned, and now it is proposed to impose upon them from out-
side the very authority which, in the case I have referred to, was shown to be the wrong authority as lately as 1924. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some indication that it is possible to reconsider this decision, and to give, after five or six years of disturbance, at any rate a peaceful period of 10 years in cases where these joint advisory boards have been established.

Mr. ATTLEE: One cannot help rather admiring the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) for rejoicing so exceedingly over the mess that has been made, because all these elaborate delays, and all this turmoil in connection with electricity, has been largely caused by himself and his friends in dealing with previous Electricity Acts. I do think that this is rather a preposterous suggestion which is now put forward. The hon. Member wants, not to ward off something that might happen, but to say definitely that no joint electricity authority shall be established in a particular district within a period of 10 years, apart from any question of what the people of the district may want.

Mr. BALFOUR: It is only in districts where, since the Act of 1919, all these inquiries have been held as to whether a joint electricity authority should be set up, and it was decided that it should not be set up. Surely, a period of 10 years should be allowed to the authority which has been established.

Mr. ATTLEE: I quite understand, but I happen to know some of those districts, and I know that in some of them it is hoped that the Joint Advisory Board will be turned into an authority, even if opinion during five years has not been unanimous. The hon. Member would entirely prohibit that; he says that, once he has got what he likes, nothing more must be done, although it is quite clear that the powers of the Government Department under the Electricity Supply Acts are being cramped. It is perfectly ridiculous for the hon. Member to get up and illustrate the difficulties, because they are to a large extent difficulties of his own creation.

Sir F. HALL: I quite appreciate the remarks of the hon Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee). I know that he is himself very closely connected with one joint electricity authority, and I can quite
understand that he may be desirous of seeing these authorities set up all over the country, irrespective of what might be desired by the people in the districts concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has pointed out that it is only where a joint advisory board has been set up, and where the whole case has been carefully gone into since 1919, that this Amendment is desired. I cannot help thinking that in many cases the development of electricity has been unnecessarily cramped by the vast amount of legislation, that we have had. Only last year we had two Bills Which were carefully considered in this House, and now we have another Bill this year which is to wipe out the Bills of 1925. I suppose that in 1927 we shall have a Bill to wipe out the Bill of 1926; and yet people wonder that those who are interested in electricity have not been able further to develop the industry. I venture to say that the enormous developments that have taken place during the last few years are phenomenal.
I am sorry that the Attorney-General should think that every one of us who oppose various provisions in this Bill is desirous, to use the old phrase, of wrecking the Bill. Of course, the Attorney-General has a perfect right to his opinion, as I have to mine, but I want to tell him that he is absolutely wrong as to the attitude that he thinks we are taking with regard to the Electricity Commissioners. We have confidence in the Electricity Commissioners. My right hon. Friend knows that during the Committee stage he himself was desirous that alterations should be made in the Bill, and it Was only owing to the action of the Committee that those alterations were made. I venture to say that the Bill has been improved, but, if we are to have a Bill to wipe out the previous Bills, let us have a Bill as closely connected as possible with the advantages of electricity at the present time. Surely, to go on holding one inquiry after another is not the way to develop electricity in this country, as we are desirous of doing. Let us, therefore, make our Measures as reasonable as we possibly can, and, surely, there is a certain amount of reasonableness in this proposed new Clause, applying, as it does, only to cases that have been gone into since the Act of 1919, where advisory boards have been set up, and where the people in the dis-
tricts have said that they do not want a joint electricity authority. In those circumstances I venture to suggest that it is not for my right hon. Friend to say that we who do not agree entirely with the Government in their proposals are opposed to the Electricity Commissioners themselves. I say, as I said in the Committee room, that I have every confidence in the Commissioners, but at the same time I think it is advisable, when Measures of this kind are going through, that we should, if we possibly can, assist the industry, instead of, as we may do in many cases, clogging the wheels of the machinery.

Mr. HARRIS: I am glad to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) has every confidence in the Electricity Commissioners, but it was because of his success, or the success of some of his friends, in getting the compulsory powers deleted from the Bill of 1919, that the Commissioners have not been able to force into existence these joint electricity authorities. If those compulsory powers had been in 'existence, snore progress would have been made during the last few years, as has been pointed out in the admirable report of some of the hon. and gallant Member's own friends, and it might not have, been necessary to have this new Measure. Now an attempt is being made at the same kind of obstruction and amendment in the case of this new Bill, so as to make it also a dead letter. I hope the Attorney-General will be more successful than his predecessor in opposing this obstruction, and will insist on retaining this most valuable proposal that, where it is proved that the board is not effective in bringing all the interests together, there should be power to bring into existence, in areas where they do not already exist, joint electricity authorities.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Sale of fittings.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section a joint electricity authority and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may sell electric lines, fittings, apparatus, anal appliances for lighting, heating, and motive power, and for all other purposes for which electricity can or may be used (in this Section called "electric fittings"), and may instal, connect, repair, maintain, and re-
move the same, and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges, and may make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.

(2) The exercise of the powers of this Section shall be subject to the following restrictions:

(a) The joint electricity authority or local authority shall not manufacture electric fittings unless expressly authorised to do so by special Act or Order;
(b) The joint electricity authority or local authority shall not sell electric fittings except—

(i) to a consumer or a person who intends to be a consumer of electricity supplied by them; or
(ii) to a contractor who requires such fittings to enable him to supply them to a person who is, or intends to be, a consumer of electricity supplied by the joint electricity authority or local authority;

(c) The prices charged by a joint electricity authority or a local authority for the sale of any electric fittings shall not lie less than the recognised retail price, unless the sale is to a contractor, in which case the prices shall not be less than the recognised trade prices, and if any question shall arise as to what are the recognised retail or trade prices of any electric fittings, that question shall be determined by the committee appointed as hereinafter provided;
(d) Every such joint electricity authority or local authority shall so adjust the charges to be made by them under this Section as to meet any expenditure incurred by them in the exercise of the powers of this Section (including interest upon and sinking fund charges in respect of money borrowed for the purposes of this Section);
(e) The total sums received and expended by any such joint electricity authority or local authority under this Section in each year, including interest upon and sinking fund charges in respect of money borrowed for the purposes of this Section, shall he shown separately in the published accounts of the electricity undertaking of such joint electricity authority or local authority.

(3) The Electricity Commissioners shall appoint a committee comprising representatives of associations representing local authorities who are authorised undertakers, contractors, and persons engaged in the business of making and persons engaged in the business of selling electric fittings, such committee to be appointed after consultation with those associations, and that committee shall determine any question which may be raised under this Section as to the recognised retail or trade prices of any electric fittings, and shall advise and assist the persons concerned as to the method of giving effect to the provisions of this Section.

(4) The purposes of this Section shall be deemed to be purposes for which the joint
electricity authority or the local authority may borrow money.

(5) In this Section the expression "contractor" means a person engaged in the business of selling and installing electric fittings.—[Mr. Looker.]

Mr. SPEAKER: As regards this Clause, it appeared to me at first to be outside the scope of the Bill. But my attention has been called to a somewhat similar Clause in the Act of 1919, entitled "Supply of apparatus," and, in view of that Clause, I am not prepared to rule against this Clause.

Clause brought up, and read the thirst time.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to enable all local authorities who are authorised to manufacture and sell current to the public also to carry out the complementary business of selling to the public electrical fittings which are necessary to enable the benefits of that electric supply to be received. It is one of the objects of this Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Weir Report, and on this point the Weir Report said all undertakers should be encouraged not only to sell appartus, but also to provide showrooms and exhibit appliances. The Advisory Committee on domestic supplies which was appointed by the Electricity Commissioners also recommended that full powers should be conferred on local authority undertakers for the supply of fittings. This Clause is designed to carry out those recommendations, but it does a good deal more; it provides the only avenue by which it is possible to bring the benefits of electricity to thousands of the smaller householders. If you are to give these small householders the benefit of electricity, you must create the necessary facilities which will enable them to take advantage of them, and, if you do not do that, you will fail by a very large margin to achieve the beneficial results which contribute perhaps the main justification for passing a Measure of this description. Your main difficulty in affording these small householders the benefit of electric light lies in the cost of the installation. It has been estimated that the cost of installation of a house rated at £15 is something like £12, and when you get a house rated at £50, the cost of the installation is something like
£60. The provisions of these sums in a lump is beyond the means of the immense mass of smaller householders. Unless you can get over this obstacle, you will deny the smaller class of householders the benefits of the Measure.

Commander BELLAIRS: How are they to get the benefit when they are charged the ordinary retail prices?

Mr. LOOKER: They will get the benefit, because, unless you can provide the facilities to enable them to pay the initial cost of installation, they will not be able to get electric light at all. The only way you can give them these facilities is by a great extension of the hire purchase system, and the only avenue for all practical purposes by which you can give the benefit of the hire purchase system is through local authorities who are authorised to supply electricity. The contractors, partly because their financial resources are not equal to it, and partly because they are not able to see their way to do it, in very few cases have supplied these smaller householders with electrical appliances on the hire purchase system, and, where local authorities who have the power to sell fittings have carried it out, it has meant an enormous increase in their customers, particularly among the poorer classes of the community. It is with this principal object in view that I wish to commend this Clause to the consideration of the House. It is an agreed Clause. The private contractors now recognise that local authorities have no desire unduly or unfairly to compete with them, but are only anxious to co-operate with them in providing the neighbourhood with a supply. I dare say hon. Members have received a pamphlet signed by electrical contractors' associations which are strongly in favour of the Clause, after several months' consideration.
Various local authorities who have already been authorised to manufacture electricity have been circularised recently with the idea of finding out what the position is regarding the supply of fittings, and whether or not they are hampered in carrying out their duty in providing a utility service by lack of means to sell fittings on the hire purchase system. The figures are illuminating. Out of 79 district councils, 50 have said in most unhesitating terms
that they are enormously hampered in providing electrical facilities because they have no power to provide them on the hire purchase system. Out of 64 boroughs who returned answers to questions sent them, 50 said they were overwhelmingly hampered for lack of these facilities. One of the biggest boroughs says many applications for a supply, with requests for wiring the houses on the hire purchase system, have been received. Practically all new houses are wired in the building, but there are hundreds of potential consumers in houses of the older type if the hire purchase system could be arranged. When we turn to the other side of the picture, that is to say the case of those local authorities who are authorised to sell, the figures are more illuminating still. In Ipswich they have completed 1,200 installations. In South Shields up to June, 1926, 12,000 applications were received, and over 7,000 were connected, while at Newcastle-on-Tyne, which is operated not by a local authority but by a company, in six months they had 6,860 applications for wiring under the hire purchase system, and 2,500 have been connected. All the trend of recent legislation has been to give local authorities the necessary powers to sell electrical apparatus, which would furnish a supplementary branch to their power to manufacture and sell electricity, and during this Session the House on seven separate occasions has specifically authorised this power to be granted to corporations applying for sanction to manufacture electricity, and it is absurd to suppose that this trend of legislation is going to be reversed.
The present position is that 75 per cent. of the municipal authorities engaged in supplying electricity have this power, and the other 25 per cent. are deprived of it. It is rather illogical and inconsistent to refuse the remaining 25 per cent. what the other 75 per cent. have. Up to now the opposition to the grant of these powers has come from the representatives of electrical contractors and from those hon. Members who take the view that municipal trading of any description is a thing to be condemned and reprobated by the House. I know quite well that, in spite of the contractors' agreement, this Clause will look like heresy to many Members on this side of the House, but I beg them to look at the matter with a
more open mind. I am as much opposed to the general principal of municipal trade as they are, and should oppose any Measure which purported to give local authorities power to compete with ordinary tradesmen in the commodities of daily life. But when you come to the provision of utility services, the matter stands on a very different footing, and if we are to give localities the benefit of these services, which can in many cases only be carried out by a local authority, it is vital that we should not tie the hands of that local authority in any way. If we are to continue this principle of encouraging local authorities to provide these utility services, but at the same time hamper them by refusing facilities by which alone the great mass of the people can take advantage of them, it is rather like encouraging a man to engage in a race for the benefit of the public on the condition that he does not make use of one of his legs. I commend the Clause to the consideration of the House, and hope that by its means we shall he able to extend the benefits of electricity to the mass of small householders.

Mr. BURMAN: I beg to second the Motion.
The passage of this Clause will be hailed with a sigh of relief by every municipal electricity undertaking in the country. It will also remove a very grave anomaly because, although a number of municipalities hold these powers, they have only been prevented from putting them into force by reason of the opposition, which has been so very strong. Fortunately, now we have reached agreement with the contractors, and I hope one of the most vexed questions connected with electricity supply will be removed once for all. It is only right and just that municipal bodies should have the same rights and privileges as companies. I have been for many years a member of a municipal electricity undertaking possessing these powers, and it has been unable to put them in force by reason of the opposition of the electrical contractors. I hope the Clause will pass, and that the difficulties and troubles which have hampered municipalities in the past will be removed.

Mr. HANNON: I am very glad to find myself in entire agreement with the Mover and Seconder of the New Clause, and I only intervene because I was one of those who in Committee upstairs opposed this innovation in a general Act, to provide very widely extended powers of trading by municipalities. Since a general agreement has been arrived at between the interests concerned, the various contracting associations and those responsible for the administration of municipal undertakings, cannot now oppose these powers being given in this Act. In Committee upstairs, my right hon., and learned Friend the Attorney-General, with a generous conception of the wideness of the privilege given to the Committee to express its views, allowed us to have a free vote. I do not know what action he will take this evening, but if we are allowed a free vote. I hope that those hon. Members on this side of the House who entertained serious doubt as to the rectitude and public wisdom of inserting a provision of this kind in an Act of Parliament, will see that there is a good reason for their views and support the insertion of the New Clause. In saying that, I wish to register my personal opinion that this House ought always to take the greatest care and to exercise the greatest caution in adopting any proposals which tend to the extension of municipal trading; generally. I am satisfied that the provisions of this New Clause are so guarded and so in conformity with what would be best in the interests of municipalities, and particularly the extension of the housing powers of those municipalities, that I think the House ought to accept the New Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the House has been already informed, this Clause, or a substantially similar Clause, was moved in Committee, and I thought it right then on behalf of the Government to say that I would leave it to a free vote of the Committee to decide as they thought fit. I am proposing to take the same course this evening. My reasons for taking that course are, that on the one hand there is a strong feeling among Members of my party against what is known as municipal trading, a feeling which to a large extent I share, but on the other hand one has to remember that this
particular power has already been given to, I think, 80 different local authorities out of some 380, and that this very Parliament in which we are now meeting has during the last two years seven times passed Bills which conferred this power upon individual local authorities. There is a good deal to be said for the view that it is illogical that whenever a local authority goes to the expense of promoting a special Bill, it should be able to get the power to sell electrical fittings, whereas when a general power is sought the right is refused. The present position is, as the House no doubt realises, that under the Act of 1919 any local authority may let out on hire electric fittings, but no local authority can sell such fittings unless it is specially empowered to do so by a special Act of Parliament. The suggestion is that this New Clause will remove that anomaly by allowing powers to sell without a special Act. It does not seem to me that this is a matter which raises a party question, and it is not a matter which affects the particular proposal which is my main interest in this Bill, namely, that of setting up the Board and what is known as the grid system. Therefore, I think the fairest thing to do to the House and to those hon. Members who feel strongly about this matter, is for me to say that the Government will take no side and will leave it to a free vote of the House.

Captain SHAW: I am against municipal trading, speaking generally. I realise that in regard to the very small houses which pay a small rent, if the occupiers wish electricity to be installed in their houses and they apply to a contractor to put it in, that contractor, naturally, is going to get a profit out of the work. If on the other hand the local authority who are supplying the electricity are empowered to put in the installation on their own terms, it will mean in many cases that they will put it in without any cost to the householder, because by so doing there will be a greater consumption of the electricity which they supply. It seems to me that in those cases where the local authorities are empowered to instal electricity, small houses paying small rents will get the electricity installed, whereas otherwise they would
not be able to get it. I would suggest that an Amendment should be added, to the effect that local authorities should only be allowed to instal electricity in small houses of a certain low rental value at the undertaker's own price. If that were done it would mean that the local authority would only instal plant in a house if it were of a small rent, decided beforehand, and would be prohibited from selling any electric fittings to the rest of the community except at recognised retail prices. If the Clause goes through as it stands, it will prevent many small houses of small rentals from getting an installation of electricity.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment to s. 21 of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919.)

"Where applications made by any authorised undertakers for consent to the placing of any electric line above ground and way-leaves have not been agreed with the owners or occupiers of any land proposed to be crossed by a line, the undertakers may serve notice in accordance with the provisions of Section twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, of their proposal to place the line, and the Minister of Transport may proceed concurrently under Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of consent to the placing of the line overhead and to the wayleave, and any hearing afforded to the parties concerned shall he in respect of both questions."—[Sir J. Dawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: Before moving the Second Reading of the Clause, I wish to point out that it is my intention not to move the Clause as it stands on the Paper, but to leave out the words
in respect of consent to the placing of the line overhead and to the wayleave, and any hearing afforded to the parties concerned shall be in respect of both questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: The alteration suggested by the hon. Member will have to be made by way of Amendment, if the House read the New Clause a Second time. The hon. Member must move it as it appears on the Order Paper.

Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the New Clause is to save time in connection with the construction of overhead lines. It will not
deprive any owners or occupiers of land of any rights which they possess to-day. It simply means that instead of holding two inquiries with regard to overhead lines and wayleaves, there will be one inquiry into both matters.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to second the Motion.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Government are prepared to accept the new Clause with the omission of the words indicated in the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. I think the House will agree that this small though necessary Amendment will make for economy and speed. At the present time, if an authorised undertaker wishes to obtain permission to place lines overhead and not underground, he has to apply to the Minister, who will hold an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the local inhabitants. After the inquiry, there is another investigation in regard to way-leaves, assuming that the Minister has approved the placing of overhead lines. This new Clause will provide that there shall be one inquiry with regard to these two matters: it will save money and make for efficiency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, to leave out from "1919" in line 7 to the end of the Clause.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Clause—(Saving for tramway generating stations)—which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Sir J. Grant) is an Amendment. to Clause 4. I observe that the hon. Member has it clown in that place.
That disposes of the new Clauses.

Mr. HARDIE: Does this new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire become an Amendment to Clause 4?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will come up as an Amendment to that Clause.

Mr. HARDIE: Not as a new Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: Not as a new Clause.

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Central Electricity Board.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, page 1, line 10, after the word "Board," to insert the words, "(in this Act referred to as the Board ')." This is a matter of drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "members" to the end of Subsection (1), and to insert instead thereof the words,
appointed or elected from time to time in accordance with a scheme to he prepared by the Minister of Transport, which scheme shall be as analogous as nearly as practicable to the statutory provisions regulating the appointment and election of the members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The said scheme shall be embodied by the Minister of Transport in an Order which shall be laid before each House of Parliament, but shall not come into force unless and until the Order has been approved, with or without modifications, by a Resolution passed by each such House.
The object of this Amendment is to alter and define the methods under which the Central Electricity Board is to be appointed and the way in which it is to be composed. The intention of the supporters of this Amendment is to ensure that this particular body shall he the kind of body which we have understood from the Government generally it was intended to be. I can explain it best by a reference to one of the early speeches of the Prime Minister in regard to this Bill before it was printed. He was referring to this Board and said unit it was intended to be an authority on the lines of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, or on the lines of the Port of London Authority.
What we propose by the Amendment is, that the Board, instead of being appointed by the Minister of Transport as is provided in the Clause, should be appointed or elected in a similar way to that in which the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is elected. For that purpose it is necessary to provide machinery which is adaptable to this Bill, and we therefore propose that the Board should be appointed under a scheme to be prepared by the Minister of Transport and analogous to the provisions relating to the two boards to which I have referred, and that the scheme shall be embodied
in an Order to be laid before Parliament and not to come into force until the Order has been approved. I should like to emphasise this fact, that this method of appointing a board has worked very well in the two cases already referred to. It is not difficult to carry out, it would relieve the Minister of Transport of work which is unnecessary, and will ensure that the constitution and appointment of this Board will be on a more satisfactory basis. We are merely trying to put into the Bill what was stated to be his intention by the Prime Minister, and therefore I hope the Amendment will be accepted. Here, again, if the Amendment is accepted in principle I do not want to bind myself absolutely to the exact wording, and I shall be quite prepared to consent to any slight alteration which may be thought necessary in order to make it work more smoothly and carry out our intentions. There is one further reason why the Amendment should be accepted, and that is that the Board and the Electricity Commissioners, who ought to be in a position to be able to work together and get the benefit of each other's work, would be in a. mare satisfactory position if the Board were appointed in the manner suggested by the Amendment.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment. The intention, as was announced by the Prime Minister in his speech, was quite clearly that this board was to be a public authority, and the actual composition of the board in the Bill as it stands is a flagrant inconsistency between the actual provisions of the Bill and the policy announced by the Prime Minister himself. This is what the Prime Minister said:
When I speak of a Board I do not mean a nationalised authority; I do not mean a Government Department. What we have in our mind is a Board managed by practical men closely in touch with the industry, on the lines of such an authority as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board or the Port of London.
This was reinforced by no less an authority than Lord Weir, who, in a speech at Liverpool on the 26th of July of this year, as reported in the "Liverpool Post and Mercury," said:
He had been told that both the Report and the Bill were Socialistic, but there were technical and economic considerations connected with the generation of electrical energy which demanded a degree of co-
operative working and control in order to obtain effective results. He had never heard the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board described as Socialistic, and yet the new Electricity Board would be constituted on exactly the same lines.
The Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Committee, on whose report this Bill is supposed to be based, say that this new public authority is to be modelled on the lines of certain existing authorities. The proposal in the Bill bears absolutely no resemblance whatever to the constitution of the two authorities referred to. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board consists of 28 members, and no fewer than 24 are elected by the users of the port. The Port of London Authority is elected in a rather different way. Members are nominated by various public bodies, but it is representative of interests and public authorities who can rightly be described as interested in the Port of London. Both these cases were quoted by the Prime Minister as a precedent for this new Board, and in the words of Lord Weir we were to have a Board "constituted on exactly the same lines" as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
What have we got? We have a Board of eight members appointed by the Minister of Transport. From time to time they must be reappointed, and the kind of men who will be appointed will obviously depend on the political opinions of the Minister for the time being. It will obviously he the case that the Minister will go to his advisers to know who is who in the industry, and he be given four or five names from which he will make a selection and fill any vacancy that may occur. These advisers are the Electricity Commissioners. I agree with some of the comments and criticisms made by an hon. Member opposite, that our attitude ought not to be interpreted as being attacks upon the personality of the Electricity Commissioners. I object to the present system whereby the Minister will appoint the Members of the Board on the advice he will obtain from the Electricity Commissioners because it infringes the very definite pronouncement of the Prime Minister that he does not mean it to be a Government Department. He meant it to be a board of technical men elected on the lines of the precedents quoted. The Amendment now before the House gives the Government an opportunity of adhering to the policy outlined by the
Prime Minister, a policy which is not embodied in the Bill, was not corrected in Committee, and, therefore, I ask in the name of consistency that the announcements and promises made as to the functions and constitution of the new board should be adhered to and that we should not be asked to adopt something quite different, something which bears no resemblance whatever to the precedents quoted. The Amendment now proposed, in my opinion, merits the earnest attention of the House.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The House will not, I think, be surprised to know that the Government does not accept this Amendment either in language or principle. It is moved on the ground that something was said by the Prime Minister, and also by Lord Weir, with which the present Bill is inconsistent. If the House followed the quotation from the Prime Minister's speech it will see that there is no shadow of inconsistency. What the Prime Minister did was to disclaim any idea of creating a Government Department. What he said was that the Board to be constituted was not to be a Government Department but a board of business men on the same lines as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board or the Port of London Authority. He never said a word to suggest that there should be a kind of a general election in order to select the eight members of the Board. Lord Weir has been quoted as having said that this Board is to be analogous to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, but the quotation from his speech proves, if proof were needed, that in the opinion of those best acquainted with the Bill and its proposals, there is no inconsistency between what the Prime Minister stated and the actual proposals of the Bill.
7.0 P.M.
Lord Weir's speech was made in July last, at a time when this Clause had been thrashed out in Committee and stood in its present form, and the hon. Member did not tell the House that when Lord Weir's Report was published he and his colleagues said they were satisfied by the way in which the Board was to be constituted; and it was to be constituted not by election but by nomination by the Minister of Transport after consultation with various interests. That being
so, it is idle to say there is any inconsistency. When we come to the merits of the proposal, my submission is that it has no merits. The Mersey Board is elected—that is the analogy which is suggested—by a poll being taken with a returning officer and, I think, a revising barrister to check the register, and so on, of all the ratepayers within a certain radius who pay rates in respect of the docks.

Sir J. NALL: Payers of dues.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is an election by all payers of dock dues who reside in a certain area. They elect 24 of the 28 members. The other four, curiously enough, are appointed by the Minister of Transport. Supposing we apply the analogy which my hon. Friend suggests, we shall have to have all the consumers of electricity for this board, and that would mean a very interesting general election all over the country to which all the eight members presumably would make speeches in the various districts, and promise varying reductions in rates if they were chosen by their would-be constituents. You would have the whole machinery of a general election, which is wholly unsuitable to the constitution of what the Prime Minister stated he desires, and what the House desires, namely, a board of business men to carry out business principles. The thing only needs to be studied to show that it is not a practicable proposal. It would have this advantage from the point of view of some Members, that inasmuch as you have first to have a scheme prepared, then have it submitted to each House of Parliament, and then it does not come into force until Resolutions have been passed by both Houses, if in addition you were to have this election, you would succeed in achieving a very long delay before this Board commenced to function. We hope it will commence to function in the next few weeks. That is another reason if it were needed why we reject this proposal.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Herbert) who put this Amendment down will carry it to a Division. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there is no inconsistency between the speech of the Prime Minister and the Bill. I read the speech of the Prime Minister, and I think there is no possible doubt the Prime Minister said he intended to set up
an authority on the lines of the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Harbour Board. He meant to set up an authority of that kind. Both these are semi-elected and semi-nominated. I think, therefore, we are quite entitled to say that the Bill is entirely inconsistent. Instead of a considerable elected or nominated authority representing various interests, we have eight persons nominated by the Minister himself. It seems to me as reasonable for the right hon. and learned Attorney-General to say that we should consider a new constitutional Ministry on the lines of the Grand Panjandrum of China. The picture which my right hon. and learned Friend drew of the difficulty of having an authority on the lines of the Mersey Harbour Board are very grossly exaggerated. The Port of London Authority was constituted as follows: Three members appointed by the Admiralty and the Ministry of Transport, of whom one must represent labour; one member appointed by Trinity House; six members appointed by the London County Council and the City Corporation of whom one must represent labour; seventeen elected by payers of port rates, wharfingers and owners of river craft; and one member elected by wharfingers. I think it is not impossible to conceive of an authority of the same kind containing, we will say, a certain number of representatives of corporations who would have no very great difficulty in arriving at their representatives, a certain number elected or appointed by considerable consumers of electricity, a certain number representing ratepayers and a certain number representing actual producers. If the Government would adopt, instead of turning down, this Amendment, I believe that what very many other besides myself, and especially consumers of electricity feel about this Bill, and that is great alarm would be to a great extent set at rest.

Mr. BALFOUR: It is quite futile for my right hon. Friend to suggest that there was no intention of setting up a Board on the lines of the declaration of the Prime Minister. He must be aware that throughout the length and breadth of the country only a very few details of the Measure now before the House attracted the attention of the public at large. He must be equally aware that one of those very few details which did attract attention was the preliminary pronouncement by the Prime Minister who
gave the broad outline of the Government proposals before this Bill was introduced. The one thing which attracted the imagination of the people of this country was the fact that if there was to be a general control board that board was to be established on the lines of the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I have not the slightest desire to continue the Debate or delay the proceedings. My right hon. Friend rather raised a laugh by suggesting an authority consisting of all the consumers of electricity in the country. The consumers of electricity would have the right to elect, if this proposal along the lines of the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was adopted—as I understand my right hon. Friend. Indeed, the object is that this central Board should be the supplier of all consumers in the country. Alternatively, a very sensible electorate would be the present authorised undertakers, the authorised undertakers at the moment being, in the majority, municipal authorities. Certainly, it is ridiculous to suggest that the electorate would be all the consumers of electricity. It was on an argument this that my right hon. Friend rode off in Committee. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, while I am quite unable to enter into a contest of words with him, he has never once engaged with me in a battle of facts. He always refuses to enter into them. It is quite true he attracts the ears of his hearers in debate, and puts before them what looks like convincing arguments, such as those who would elect the Board, or the consumers in Great Britain. Of course, it is impossible. He knows that would not be the proposal, if the proposal was to set up an authority constituted on the lines of the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Mr. HANNON: I hope my hon. Friend will not carry this Amendment to a Division. I had some doubt in my mind, when the Bill was in Committee, of the propriety from the public point of view of appointing the board in this way. I certainly feel that it is much preferable to have a board for the highly-responsible objects in view appointed as laid down in the Bill, rather than some sort of conglomerate body partly nominated and partly eleected on a certain peculiar suffrage. I can hardly conceive anything
more hopeless, from the point of view of efficient administration of a great project such as this Bill, than to have a large board, in the first place, composed of a great variety of points of view, in the second, depending from time to time upon election, no matter what the basis of the franchise may be, in order to continue some kind of definite policy.

Mr. D. HERBERT: May I correct. This Amendment does not provide for a largo board but for one composed of seven persons.

Mr. HANNON: I did not understand. My hon. Friend spoke of the constitution of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and of the constitution of the Port of London Authority. It was in my mind that they contemplated some large body of persons. I think the only way in which the Bill can be effectively administered is to have a competent body of capable business men as was originally suggested by the Prime Minister in his speech. In that speech he did not dream of suggesting that the Board should be on the basis of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board or the Port of London Authority. He was giving an example of the kind of public authority in his mind. I hope no more time will be wasted on a. discussion of the Amendment. If we are to have any effective administration at all, we must trust the Minister to get us the best sort of Board. If we cannot trust the Minister to get us the best possible Board for the administration of the purposes of this Act, the whole Measure is hopeless from the national point of view. I believe the present administration of the Ministry of Transport perfectly competent to select and appoint and lay down regulations for the administration of a Board which will carry out in the fullest degree the objects of the Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir F. HALL: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) misunderstood. It is perfectly plain in the Amendment that it is strictly limited to seven. I venture to say-that the Committee came to the best decision under the circumstances. There was a question with regard to commerce arid whether it included finance, and I think I am right
in saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said that was covered. I thought there should he one with regard to finance. The proposal brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) would make it very difficult. You have to rely on somebody, and so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned we rely on him. We had a Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, and I would have confidence in Members above the Gangway following out the precepts that have been laid down in the Bill in endeavouring to appoint the best men for the position. We have this satisfaction, that in this Bill, in Clause 1, they are to be appointed for five years with the possibility of the Minister of Transport granting them a period of 10 years. By that time we shall have got right down into the saddle, and I think the experience gained by the appointment of seven people representing all the different classes of industry will show that you cannot have anything better. When you have a Board you generally look round to see that they are connected with the various branches of industry likely to be of assistance and help. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division. If he does, I shall not support him.

Commander BELLAIRS: It is true, as the learned Attorney-General said, that Lord Weir's Committee recommended eight nominated members, to be nominated by the Minister of Transport, but I would attach a great deal more importance to the recommendations of Lord Weir's Committee if that Committee had not sat in private. If it had sat in public, I think we should have had a very different recommendation. In regard to the Prime Minister's speech, we have to consider what was the intention of the Prime Minister. I am certain that I am right in saying that it was his intention to convey to his audience that he wanted definitely to take the question of electricity out of politics. How on earth are you going to do that if all the members of the Board are to be nominated by the Minister of Transport? Everything connected with electricity would he challenged on the Floor of this House. When the Leader of the Liberal party introduced the Port of London Bill, he had definitely in his mind the extraordinary political pressure to which the
Government had been subjected in regard to the Post Office, and his whole object in forming a Board for the Port of London was to get the Port of London out of politics altogether, so that nothing could be challenged on the Floor of the House. We have to-day the same thing in regard to electricity. I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend had no idea of forming a large committee, and his Amendment in no way necessitates a large committee. I agree that a small committee is infinitely better than a large one.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 2, leave out the word "and" and insert instead thereof the word "or".— [The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "Board" in line 11, to the word "shall" in line 14.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. By the terms of Subsection (4) any member of the Board who is not required to devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under the Act is bound to disclose any interest he has if it comes up before the Board. I see no reason why that obligation should be confined to whole-time members of the Board, and the purpose of the Amendment is to provide that any member of the Board, whether a whole-time member or not, shall come under that obligation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out from the word "The," in line 20, to the word "Board" in line 21.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the word "Transport," to insert the words "with the approval of the Treasury."
The purpose of this Amendment is to afford some slight safeguard to the extraordinary and unprecedented powers of the Minister of Transport under this Bill. As the Bill stands, the Minister of Transport first of all chooses who shall be the members of the Board. He can give them service agreements for periods of not less than five years nor more than ten years. Under this particular Subsection he fixes their remuneration without any reference to anyone, and
apparently without any limit to the salary which he may give. Further on in the Bill it is provided that he shall lay down the form in which the annual statement of accounts of the Electricity Board shall be submitted, and he chooses who the auditors shall be, and even lays down regulations as to how the audit shall be conducted. These are extraordinary powers and they should not be given to any Minister of the Crown. I believe I am right in saying that they are absolutely unprecedented. The Electricity Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1919 were appointed by the Board of Trade, and their remuneration was to be fixed by the Board of Trade. But here we have in one single individual powers which are capable of the greatest abuse.
When we speak of the Minister of Transport our thoughts turn naturally to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who at present graces the position. But we are legislating for Ministers of Transport yet unborn. The Bill refers in one Clause to certain happenings 60 years hence. We pride ourselves, and justly, on the purity of our public life, but I submit that we are not justified in passing into law this Measure in this particular form. If ever there were a crooked Minister of Transport we would be at the mercy of that Minister, who could fix any salary he chose for those whom he selected as his Board, and with the powers conferred upon him later in the Bill he could camouflage and hide the salaries that he was paying to the members of the Board, because he could lay down the form of the statement of accounts and could choose his own auditors to audit the accounts. I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment, or some alternative, by reference, if he likes, to the Board of Trade instead of to the Treasury, so long as we cart have some means of controlling the salaries that might be given by a Minister of Transport in future.

Colonel BURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: The remarks of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would carry considerable conviction to my mind but for one fact, which is that in this country we are happy to have as
an institution the House of Commons The Minister of Transport, like all other Ministers, is the humble servant of the House of Commons. He is amenable to the House's decision; he can have his actions criticised, and very often he is critised either on his salary or by other methods which are well known to hon. Members. Therefore, if any Minister contemplated doing the outrageous things which my hon. Friend has in mind, the House of Commons of the day would fail in its duty if it did not prevent him from doing such things.

Mr. RADFORD: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to explain how the House would be aware of the terms of any particular service agreement into which the Minister entered with an individual as a member of the Board?

Colonel ASHLEY: In the annual report all these relevant things would be disclosed.

Mr. RADFORD: It would be too late then.

Colonel ASHLEY: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General reminds me, the accounts would be published in due course, having been audited by auditors appointed by myself. I may say that the Treasury do not desire to have any say in the fixing of these salaries, and I think they are wise, because they wish that the Board should he as independent as possible, and not approximate to a Civil Service condition. I was rather sorry that my hon. Friend, after saying nice things about myself, hinted at rather unpleasant things about other people. I am quite sure that whatever party be in power, it will maintain the high traditions of the House of Commons.

Mr. RADFORD: I made no reflection, and I intended no reflection on anyone. The point of view which I put was that the Bill provides for Ministers of Transport yet unborn, of whatever party. Such a Minister might belong to a party at present non-existent. I made no reflection on any party.

Colonel ASHLEY: I did not convey the idea that I had any particular party in mind. What I said was that in my opinion any future Minister of Transport will—I do not say come up to the high
ideals that I have, but, at any rate, will maintain the great traditions which have been handed down to us from many former Governments.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry that the Minister is not able to accept the Amendment—not on the higher ground of policy, without any question of suggesting that one party or Minister would be better or worse than any other, but on the simple ground that I think it is wrong that the Minister of Transport, whoever he might be, should have in his hand the absolute right of discretion without any direct control by the chief spending Department of the country in the naming of salaries and expenses for the whole of such a large staff. In the ordinary course I would not have said a word if we were dealing with some of the minor offices of one of the Ministries. But we are setting up now something which we have not had to contemplate before; we are incurring an obligation in respect of salaries and expenses possibly on a scale that we have not had to contemplate in the past. I suggest that there should be protection for the Ministers themselves, not in any way as a reflection upon them. There should be some over-riding authority, such as the Treasury or any competent authority which is deemed right and proper for the purpose. I think the Mover of the Amendment has not overdrawn the picture in pressing for some such control. The Amendment rather raises an issue for the House. We are changing our whole constitutional procedure at this moment. We are entering upon things which we have not hitherto done in this House. We are setting up a structure which will have to he dealt with by special machinery. The old machinery will no longer suit if we are going forward with the policy indicated in this Bill. His Majesty's Ministers must have regard to the new facts which they themselves have raised in this new class of legislation. If they fail to do so, they will leave a weapon in the hands of persons in the future who may start by being scrupulous but who may, indeed, become unscrupulous through the very temptation placed before them by having the uncontrolled and unfettered use of money indicated in the Clause as it now stands.

Major KINDERSLEY: I join in the protest against moneys being guaranteed
by the State and spent by the Minister of Transport without any Treasury control. It seems to me that we are starting a precedent which is absolutely rotten, and I consider it a matter of principle that this provision should be added to the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(General powers and duties of Board.)

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendments on this Clause, they contain two proposals in opposite directions. One being in the Amendments which stand in the name of the hen. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) and the other in the Amendment which stands in the Mime of the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee). I suggest that the House might take the Debate ranging over these two proposals and then take separate Divisions, if Divisions are desired, on the separate Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: That is dealing with the whole problem?

Mr. SPEAKER: Dealing with the alternative proposals.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think that suggestion will meet, the convenience of the House.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to move in page 3, line 12, after the word "of" to insert the words
considering and adopting schemes under Section four of this Act and.
I understand the proposal to be that we should take all three Amendments to this Clause standing in my name as being, in effect, one Amendment. I formally move the first of those Amendments and I propose to explain the intention and meaning of the three taken together. The first two Amendments are matters of form and words rather than of substance and the real substance of the proposed alteration of the Clause is contained in the third Amendment. The first two Amendments propose to describe more particularly what is to be the principal or primary duty of the Board and the third Amendment limits to some extent the powers of the Board. It is proposed to insert words describing what are the duties of the Board and
the first Amendment would make Subsection (1) of the Clause read as follows:
The Board shall he charged with the duty of considering and adopting schemes under Section four of this Act and supplying electricity to authorised undertakers in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
The second Amendment proposes to leave out the words "supplying electricity to" and to insert instead the words "coordinating the supply of electricity by." Then the third Amendment provides that the Board shall not directly-exercise any such powers except so far as they are unable to find authorised undertakers to do so. Therefore the general effect of these three Amendments is to set out that the primary duty of the Board is to try to co-ordinate the supply of electricity and to bring those at present concerned in the industry into harmony with one another and only themselves to exercise the power of carrying on this particular industry if they are unable to get authorised undertakers to do it in a satisfactory way. I do not know the intention of the Ministers in charge of the Bill with regard to these Amendments. If they are of the same mind as they were on the Second Beading, I think they will accept my Amendments. Both the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill were then most emphatic in saying that the real object which they had at heart was that the Board should co-ordinate the supply of electricity but should not themselves he generators of electricity or run this industry, unless and except in so far as it was found impossible to get those at present concerned in the industry to run it themselves. In effect and in substance these Amendments provide definitely that the Board shall not themselves do this particular work unless and except in so far as they cannot get authorised undertakers to do it satisfactorily. That is the scheme which has been put before us in Minister's speeches both outside this House and during the Second Beading Debate and, in these circumstances, I hone that the Government will accept these three Amendments.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport quite clearly said on the Second Reading that the duty of the
Board would be to co-ordinate the supply of electricity. Quite shortly, I ask the Government whether that is really the intention or whether, as would now appear, it is intended that the Board should be a trading organisation. I do not know if the Attorney-General, in reply to this Amendment, will say that to adopt it would wreck the scheme of the Bill. That is his usual answer, and I do not expect he will say anything else on this occasion. It establishes a new precedent when the principal and most forcible answer which a Minister can give to an Amendment proposed from his own back benches is either to ridicule it or to indulge in some unpleasant comments on the action of the Member who moves it. We seem to have departed from the system honoured for many years in this House whereby a Member was free to express such comments as he deemed proper on the Measures before the House. Therefore, I want to say emphatically, in seconding this Amendment, that it does raise the issue of whether the Government intend this Board to be a real co-ordinating authority, considering the situation in various parts of the country and adopting scheme based upon that consideration, or whether it is to be. a trading organisation, buying and selling electricity and, in many instances, competing with those organisations and authorities who already do so. We have been led to understand from many of the pronouncements which have been made that co-ordination is the principal object of the Bill. That co-ordination should be the principal object of the Bill is the intention of the Amendment now proposed and the others which are consequential upon it.
If it he argued that the principle of co-ordination, without authority to undertake trading in electricity, would destroy the object of the Bill, I say at once in reply to such a proposition that there need be no difficulty in setting up a Board with the authority—indeed, with the duty—of considering the electricity industry in the various areas of the country, of adopting schemes either as presented by technical advisers or revised by the Board as a result of their own consideration and, having adopted those schemes, of requiring the various electricity undertakers in the areas concerned to conform to them and to carry them out
or, in default, to be liable to some penalty by way of losing the rights which they enjoy under Statute or otherwise. That is a perfectly fair and workable proposition, but the Bill as it stands sets up a central trading organisation, and it is no use for my right hon. Friend to say that there is no suspicion of nationalisation in these proposals. We have heard on an earlier Amendment that our interpretation of the Prime Minister's speech is wrong. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister intended to set up a central trading authority which, in a very few years, under the provisions of the Bill, will, in fact, be the only supplier of electricity in the country. Whoever may be the generators, and however dispersed the generation may be under the control of the Board, the fact remains that under the provisions of the Bill the new central Board—an annexe of the Ministry of Transport—will be the only authority, other than the small private plants, empowered to sell electricity in bulk to various undertakers or large consumers.
It is vain for the Government spokesmen to say that this is not nationalisation. It is the kind of nationalisation that was proposed by the Miners' Federation in regard to the coal industry—the setting up of a central board which would control all production and have something to say about distribution. In principle, if this is to be a trading authority, the proposal is similar to the miners' proposal which was turned down by the Samuel Commission and by the Government. Here we are adopting exactly similar procedure for another industry where it is not needed. It is not the policy which is advocated by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said in Committee that he did not like this form of Socialism, that this was to be a board of commissars, that this proposal was Communism and was not the pure Socialism. I think the hon. Gentleman expressed that view, and it is borne out by one of the documents published by the Home Office among the Communist correspondence, a letter from Bela Kun, in which emphasis is laid upon the necessity for getting every national service into the hands of a national board and outside the control of what is described as "The Chatter
House"—otherwise, the Parliament and in this case the House of Commons.
This Amendment raises the important point of whether we are to have a central authority, appointed by the Minister and an annexe of the Ministry, yet not responsible directly to this House and not financially responsible to the Minister, and able to fall back on the industry to make good its losses and to rely on the State to provide its funds. That is nationalisation. If we adopt this Amendment, we can achieve the object of the Bill, and we can get a really co-ordinating authority, a Board of business men, even if they are appointed by the Minister, who can adopt schemes, laying down definitely the lines upon which electrical development shall take place in the various parts of the country, and ultimately in the country as a whole. There is nothing in this Amendment to prevent that being done. It would ensure that it would be done. Having got those schemes, having got the country mapped out, into areas, these schemes applying to the different electricity districts, the picture complete, the authorised undertakers in every area aware of the lines on which they were expected to develop, then indeed the Bill would achieve some useful object, but, as it is, if it is merely to be a trading authority, merely buying the product of existing stations, adding to it its own expenses, and reselling at a revised price, then I say the machinery which is contained in the Bill defeats every object which has been urged as an argument for supporting the Bill. I hope the House will realise that this is not a destructive Amendment but a distinctly constructive Amendment. It would, if adopted, ensure the realisation of the real object of the Bill, the object which we are asked to believe the Weir Committee wished to see realised, namely, the co-ordination and extension of the supply of electricity.

Mr. ATTLEE: In accordance with the arrangement, I should like to put forward the views of Members on this side who are dissatisfied with this Bill and want it very much strengthened. We have had very adequately put forward the company point of view, the view that has been consistently put forward by certain company representatives. I notice that the hon. Member
for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has joined the Board since the Committee stage.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I am not concerned in any way whatever with any company at all that is concerned in any electrical undertaking.

Mr. ATTLEE: I never said the hon. Member was, but I must congratulate him, in that case, on the extremely able way in which he has managed to put up exactly the same arguments as those of hon. Members who are connected with the companies.

Sir J. NALL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman and his friends are in order in constantly imputing the motive of private interest in everything originating from those who move Amendments on this side? On that point of Order, I want to say, as a matter of fact, that there is absolutely no ground for the allegation. The objections which we are putting forward are shared by the great municipalities just as much as by the companies.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not catch the remark complained of, but hon. Members will remember that it is not in order to attribute interest to hon. Members in any quarter.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not very apparent when hon. Members opposite have made the very point that they were representing private interests?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not take it that way at all. I think hon. Members come here representing the public interest.

Mr. ATTLEE: The position taken up by hon. Members opposite is that they do not want any interference with the companies in any dealings with the electrical industry. That has been their point of view right the way through. They have endeavoured in all discussions to get rid largely of any control by the Electricity Commissioners, and have endeavoured to belittle the functions of this Board. The Amendment to this Clause which I am supporting, and which will be moved later on, is one of those Amendments put in specially to assist this Board in co-ordinating and controlling the electrical industry. The hon. Member opposite said he was in love with co-ordination, but he does not want
a trading concern. Yes, but he never supported us on this side when we moved that the Electricity Commissioners should be the Board, because we have already got the co-ordinating authority in the Ministry of Transport and the Electricity Commissioners. If co-ordination was all that, was needed, you could easily have strengthened the powers of the Minister of Transport and the Electricity Commissioners, but, on the contrary, the whole advocacy of the Board that we have had was that it should be a business Board of trading experience, and, of course, it is perfectly correct, from the point of view of the Government, that if they want to get any effective control, they have got to have a trading concern, if they ore proceeding with this particular method that is laid down in the Bill.
We on this side would prefer to have seen a much bolder Bill that would have fulfilled another saving of the Prime Minister, to the effect that he was going to he ruthless against certain private interests that stood in the path. Our point has always been that we should have liked a clean Bill for nationalisation and municipalisation. This half-hearted Measure is the contribution of the present Government, and they have found it necessary, in order to get control, to have a Board that shall operate at some point or other. They could either have entirely controlled transmission and generation, or they might have controlled the distributing side of the business. They have chosen to step in mainly on the side of generation and partly of transmission, and it is only by getting hold of this generation, this power of causing generation at certain electrical stations, with power to purchase current and re-sell it, that the Board in this Bill will get their finance. Therefore, if you cut out their powers of trading, you cut at the root of the Bill, and it is obvious that the Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment, and that it would destroy the whole principle of the Bill.
I do not care very much, as the hon. Member opposite said, for the Government's scheme. I agree, as he said, that the Government are setting up Commissars, and I do not much care for the Commissar system, but I prefer it to the Nepmen, and wherever ibis Bill
was really going to do something, we have had Clauses brought in taking away the powers of the Board. We, on this side, want to see the Board generating electricity, we want to see the generation co-ordinated in the public hands, we want to see the generating stations owned by the general public, we want to see the transmission lines owned by the general public, we want to see them constructed by a public authority, but all through this Bill—it is the chief vice of the Bill—you have that principle whittled away in order to provide opportunities whereby companies may make profits. That is our charge against this Bill. We realise that there are good points in it, but it is on this Clause particularly, dealing with the general powers and duties of the Board, that this Bill must stand or fall. If the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) has his way, and the Board becomes a mere co-ordinating authority, the Bill might just as well go by the board. You have got the co-ordinating authority already, and we know perfectly well the futility of trying to set up a co-ordinating authority without effective powers. If you take the Bill as it stands, you will have a certain amount of power in the Board, but it will be a feeble power, because the policy all through has been to cripple the power of the Board.
I have noticed all the way through a very great distrust by hon. Members opposite of their own Ministers. They lo not seem to think it is possible for the Minister of Transport to select efficient business men. They do a little lip-service to him flaw and again, but, by their actions and Amendments, they try to show that he is of no use at all. If they really believed in the efficiency of the business man—because that is the idea of this Board, to be mainly composed of business men—they should give these business men full powers, and entrust them with the functions of a trading concern. We want, it to be the prime duty of the Board, not only to form schemes, and to lay down a network of transmission lines, but to get into its hands the whole of the power of generation. If the Board has that power, I believe that under this Bill, especially if it is strengthened by some other Amendments, it can, through the power of controlling generation, actually control to
some extent the distribution and the cost of distribution. There again it is one of the weaknesses of the Bill that it does not effectively touch distribution, but I hope this House will reject the Amendment now before it, which, as I say, would kill the Bill, and I hope it will support the Amendment which we, on this side, are moving, to try and make this Bill a real Bill.
It is no good doing things in a halfhearted way. If you want a co-ordinating board, if you give the board power to do certain things, you should try and make it effective, but hon. Members opposite do not want an effective board. They do not want anything effective at all, but have frequently in the past mangled and crippled the Clauses of the Bill in order that they should not work, so that they might be free to continue their private enterprise. I am not attacking them as morally wicked or anything of that sort. The hon. Member opposite was rather concerned when I said he spoke on behalf of the companies. He has a legitimate belief that the electrical industry is safer in the hands of companies than in the hands of public authorities. He may be quite right, but we, on this side, do not believe in handing over any part of a great national service like this to private enterprise. We would take it right away from private enterprise if we could, and because we believe that this whole matter of, the co-ordination of the electricity supply is one of enormous moment nationally, economically, and socially, we shall oppose this Amendment and support the Amendment to be moved later on from this side.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Government find themselves in the unhappy position at the present moment of being attacked from both sides. Possibly that may show we have chosen that middle way which we know is the safest one for the State to follow. I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that this business of electricity is one of enormous moment to the nation, and I agree that it is of vital importance that this House shall solve, in the right way, the problems which are now before it. But I hope to be able to show the House that the solution which we have chosen is the wise one, and that
there are obvious objections to either of the alternatives which are put forward from such different points of view. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), who moved the Amendment, said that he was in doubt as to the intentions of the Government. No doubt that was because he was not a member of the Committee when these very Amendments were discussed at great length, and when I explained, I am afraid also at some length, what the views of the Government were on this particular point. Our intentions are the same now as they were expressed to be then.
8.0 P.M.
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment accused me of setting a new precedent. He said that I was destructive, and that it was an interference with the free rights of any Member of the House to comment on any proposal put before the House. I have never sought to limit or to challenge the right of any Member to criticise the opinions put before him, but a Member must not be surprised if the fallacy of his arguments is exposed or the absurdity of his suggestions commented on. The Amendment we are discussing immediately is one that in fact will wreck the It is said that the Government proclaimed their intention of co-ordinating the supply of electricity. I agree. So we did, and so we intend to do. But the hon. Member who moved the Amendment then said if that was so, that was wholly inconsistent with supplying electricity under Clause 2 of this Bill. In fact there is no such inconsistency. The plan which the Government asked the House to adopt was that we should coordinate the supply of electricity by a named method, anti we asked the House to approve the establishment of a central Board to decide the most suitable places in which electricity should be generated, and to acquire from those stations the electricity produced, and then sell it at cost price to the consumer. That is the scheme which the House accepted by a large majority on the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment can hardly be surprised if the leaders of his party comment a little adversely on his Amendment when he himself considers himself at liberty to describe us, not only as Socialists but even as Communists, and says that there is something in our Bill worse than any-
thing put forward by the most extreme section opposite.

Sir J. NALL: I have never attacked any individual until I was attacked by that individual. What I have attacked is the principle of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am within the recollection of the House with regard to the attack on which I commented. This is a Bill which I am putting forward on the authority of my colleagues in the Cabinet as well as myself. I am not going to embark on a discussion on the merits of nationalisation. We believe on this side of the House that nationalisation is bad.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Some of us.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Those of us who understand what nationalisation is object to it on the ground, first of all, that in our view it is undesirable to establish a large body of wage-earners dependent on the State for their wages and therefore liable to create a body of electorate which would put great pressure on Members of Parliament and be open to all sorts of illegitimate inducements to vote in a particular way. We believe also that nationalisation is a mistake because it would tend to hinder and discourage private enterprise and the incentive to private gain that is given by private enterprise. We believe that nationalisation would lead to the setting up of a large bureaucracy and an inefficient machine. The scheme we put forward has none of those objections. We do not propose that there should be any large body of people employed in generating electricity by the State or even by the board. Our proposal is that the generation of electricity shall continue to be in the hands of the electricity stations. We do not propose to discourage private enterprise, because the owners of stations will have the best possible incentive to work them efficiently. We do not propose to set up a big Government bureaucracy in Whitehall, because we intend only to have this board of eight or so people who are to co-ordinate the supply of electricity by the means I have mentioned.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) puts the other point of view and says that this Bill is a bad Bill or of
little value because it does not impose on the Board the primary duty of generating electricity. It is precisely because we regard that as a mistake that we have framed the Bill as we have. We desire generation and distribution to remain in the individual authorised undertakings and we desire that electricity, wherever it is distributed, may be distributed in the most economical way. By this Bill we hope to insure a general cheapening of the cost to the consumers wherever they may be situated. All we can possibly do with regard to the Amendments now before the House is to ask the House to reject the Amendment designed to deprive the Board of the power to supply electricity, and equally to reject the Amendment that is designed to impose on the Board the duty of generating electricity and deprive stations at present generating it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am always rather interested when I hear hon. Members opposite tell us how deadly opposed they are to any nationalisation proposals, because whenever the nation is in urgent need of either an improved service or of a cheapened service, whenever the nation is in real need of some perfect organisation, they always resort to nationalisation. Why have we this Bill before us at all this evening? Is it not the fact that the very cause of this Bill being here is that private enterprise has failed to provide the necessary power as cheap as it would have been supplied if the nation had had the control long ago? The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) is one of the most persistent opponents of nationalisation—hence his Amendment. I have never heard him argue against nationalising the Army, nor for the denationalisation of the Navy, nor even against the National Debt. Although those services may not be so technical as electricity, it is extraordinary that they should never be referred to. It is the vested interests of the time that are preventing this Bill from being as useful as it might be. The Amendment which stands in my name has for its object the elimination of ten or twelve words which would permit the Board, not only to supply electricity but in case of need to generate electricity. The discussions in Committee rather indicated that it is true that in many large areas of this country
the large companies have been more interested in extending their scale of influence by further Parliamentary powers than they have been in either generating or supplying electricity according to the needs of various districts. The opponents generally of this Bill, and the supporters of the Amendment have as yet been unable to take the national point of view on this vital subject. We are told by the Prime Minister that until we have a perfect co-ordinated electricity supply we are bound to be lagging behind industrially because we fail to take advantage of twentieth century science. Yet here we are without this electricity supply. Private enterprise has failed to deliver the goods. Municipalities have always been the first, the best and the cheapest in the field—municipal undertakings where profits are entirely eliminated.

Sir J. NALL: Why disturb it?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Personally I would not disturb a municipality that has done its duty to its purchasers, but in the interests of the industrial life of the whole nation I would co-ordinate the generation and supply of electricity on a basis similar to that which we have in our municipal undertakings. That is why I want to see not only a Board whose duty shall be to co-ordinate the chaotic private enterprise undertakings, but the whole of municipal undertakings so that every corner of this country may have available electricity at reasonable prices. When hon. Members are pitting private enterprise against what they call Socialism, I wonder if they really believe what they themselves have said. After all, the municipalities of Great Britain not only have taught private enterprise in the matter of economic production and distribution, but it is on record that the price charged by the municipality invariably is less than the price charged by private enterprise in any part of the country. That example ought to be built upon, and would be built upon, if hon. Members opposite would take the national point of view, instead of the point of view which affects the private interests of a comparatively few people.
Therefore, I want to suggest that, instead of the Government urging, stimulating, co-ordinating chaotic private enterprise, they ought to be carrying out
the duties for which they were elected, namely, to preserve all they can for the 46,000,000 people, and not for the 50,000 or 100,000 shareholders. This House is dealing with the business of the whole nation, and, taking the national outlook, legislating on behalf of the whole of the people, and not the people interested in these electricity undertakings. I suggest that, instead of further decreasing the power of the Board, we ought to increase the power of the Board, permitting them not only to supply, but to generate, for when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there will be districts where it will be most difficult for the Board or the Electricity Commissioners to persuade people who are in business exclusively for profit to generate and supply in various districts where their returns may not be as good as they would be, for instance, in the middle of a city. Therefore, I suggest that this Board and the Electricity Commissioners should have power to settle a scheme which is going to supply the whole nation as quickly and as well as can be. For that reason, I shall not only oppose the Amendment, but I hope that not only Members on this side, but at least a few Members on the other side who take the community point of view in the municipal sense, will follow us into the Lobby, go one step further, and vote at least on one occasion in the national interest, instead of in the interest of private investors

Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is not in his place, although I understand he cannot be on the bench all the time, for I am sure he would have appreciated very much the speech which has just fallen from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), as I am quite sure he appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). Before concluding his speech, he contested with my hon. Friend as to who was the best judge whether the Government proposals were Socialistic or not, and he rather inferred that he was a better judge as to whether this was a Socialist measure or not, stoutly contending that is was not proposed as a Measure of nationalisation. There are judges and judges in this House, and I think even my right hon. Friend would admit that, perhaps, the best judges are hon. Members on the benches opposite who have commended this Measure as, a
Socialist measure, and given wholehearted support to my right hon. Friend [An HON. MEMBER: "We shall go a lot further than this!"] The Amendment we are now discussing, it is perfectly true, was discussed in Committee. After a short experience, the Committee did not expect much satisfaction, and, frankly, as little satisfaction is expected here, having regard to past experience. What does emerge from the discussion is that this Board is to be a State-trading Board. My right hon. Friend took no exception to the observations of the hon. Member for Limehouse when he said the companies did not want any interference. Interfere with the companies certainly at once, if you can show that the public generally will benefit. You have a perfect right to pass legislation through this House interfering with companies, or municipalities, or anybody else. I have no right to stand here and say you must not interfere with these companies because it will affect my personal interest, but I say, make out a case to show that the public interest demands it. Let us have the facts. I asked upstairs quite respectfully, temperately, and consistently, let us have the facts upon which you rely. I am still waiting for those facts. No facts are being produced which entitle us to assume that there should be a new Central Board in complete control with trading powers, which the hon. Gentleman opposite quite frankly, and, from his point of view, quite properly, said they should have. He said that if they (the State) are to have any effective control they must he a trading concern. That was said by the hon. Member for Limehouse in support of the speech made by my right hon. Friend from these benches.
My right hon. Friend taunted us as to who were the best judges of Socialists. I think I am, at any rate, a supporter of the Conservative party. If my leaders betray me, there is no reason why I should become a Socialist; I can still remain a member of the Conservative party. That is the position in which we are placed on this Amendment, and I would beg hon. Members on this side really to begin to turn their attention to this Measure, which the Prime Minister described as the first and most important Government Measure. We have dealt with several Amendments. How many
hon. Members in this House are interested? I do not blame them, because they do not understand, and, trading on them, my right hon. Friend believes it is perfectly easy to get this Measure through the House of Commons, and, no doubt, through the other House. We must pay attention to the Amendments we are now considering. The plain blunt issue is, are we supporting a Socialist Measure or private enterprise? As far as I am concerned, I say frankly I support private enterprise. I am quite content to turn round, and become a Socialist when the facts, based not on the personal interest, but on the common welfare of the people at large warrant it. No such facts are produced, and, notwithstanding the odium attaching to me for being deeply concerned in the industry, I shall go on endeavouring to do what little I can to protect what I consider to be the rights of private individuals, until facts are produced which will show that another scheme will make for a happier and a more contented people.
It is on little Amendments of this kind, as I quite understand, hon. Members on this side, at any rate, are apt to look at the Order Paper and say, "Oh, this is a trivial matter." I can understand that, until a search is made into the operation of this Bill, it is impossible to understand the real hidden meaning, from the point of view of Members on this side, of a Clause like this, and the true effect and meaning of such an Amendment as is proposed. I reiterate on this Amendment, as I have reiterated on other Amendments, and shall go on reiterating to my right hon Friend, even at this late hour, that he should give us something which tends to conform to the hopes and ideals of his own party; or does he intend to pursue the line he has pursued right from the commencement of this Bill, of collaborating with the official Opposition, and denying to the Members of his own party that which conforms to the ordinary ideals of that party?

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has tried more than once to attach this Bill to the Socialist party. He has a fair knowledge of the technical side of any electricity proposals, but when he says this is a Socialist Bill it shows he does not understand what Socialism is. He
deplored the ignorance of other people in not understanding the Bill—and I cannot blame them, because of its technical difficulties; and I have to deplore his ignorance of Socialism. If hon. Members want to understand clearly why this is not a Socialist Bill, let them look at page 1905 of the Amendment Paper. They will see there an Amendment, proposed by the Attorney-General, to insert the following words
and the scheme shall not authorise the acquisition of a main transmission line belonging to the owners of a private generating station without the consent of the owners thereof.
We were told by the Prime Minister, who has told us a great many things that are not true, and has made a great many promises which he has not fulfilled, that this was to be a Bill to contribute in some way to the national control of electricity, and that by that national control we should produce cheaper electricity. Here, however, is an Amendment saying that any private individual who cares to stand in the way is to have the right to oppose the national interest. That is what that Amendment means; and if in face of that anyone comes along and describes this as a Socialist Bill, I am sorry for his understanding, or his lack of understanding.
The Clause with which we are now dealing appoints a Board. Why should a Board appointed, as this is to be appointed, be restricted in any way? The supply of electricity does not differ from the generation of it, so far as the Bill is concerned. It has only been made to differ because in face of the power of private enterprise and vested interests on the other side of the House that the Government could not afford to remain logical. They had to whittle down every proposal they brought forward in order to meet the vested interests in the trade. Why is that? It would not have been so years ago; but electricity now has become something worth putting money into, a good investment. That is why all this opposition comes up. The Bill as it stands puts difficulties in the way of the logical development of the electrical industry. Everyone who understands this subject will, if he be honest, admit that if this Bill were "bust"—as I should like to see it, for I do not like the Bill—the next immediate step would be nationalisation of the electrical industry. Hon.
Members cannot get away from that. We do not compare with any other country as regards electrical development. Despite what the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) said in an article in the Press the other day, the position in this country is such that we cannot compare with any other country.
What this Bill does is to put every possible difficulty in the way of the logical development of the electrical industry, and so to establish vested interests that it will be more difficult to nationalise the industry. Hon. Members must not forget, however, that times are changing. If they look at the results of the municipal elections they will get some indication of what is happening. It. will not be under the conditions they think will prevail that what belongs to vested interests will be taken over when we want to nationalise them in the interest of the nation. Things will not be taken over at their valuation; they will be taken over at the value of the service they can provide—not because someone has run a main up through a stretch of country in the hope that he is to be allowed to claim the development of that district and to say, "We were pioneers here. We ran this main up when no one was wanting electricity." We know all those games. We know all those "bunks," as they call them in America. We are quite aware of the practices of 'cute business men, whether they come from America or whether they are plain Englishmen. Hon. Members need not think that by putting difficulties in the way they will stop us on this side when we get power. When we get power it will be "The nation first!" "The interests of the majority of the people," and not the interest of a few with money investments. That is what every Clause in this Bill is based upon—the protection of vested interests as against the rights and the needs of the nation.
The Government could not go on with a Bill like this, however, unless they took the Socialist position, and that is why it is such a muddle of a Bill. If they had taken our Amendments and our advice, they would have had to-day a Bill of which any Minister might be proud. [Interruption.] Well, look at the mess you are in. The Bill is so mixed up that even the Government are quarrelling about it. Is there any
better illustration of the incapacity of the Government to draft a Bill to suit even the Tory party? You would have done better to have taken our advice, and then you would have had something that your children's children would have been glad to be associated with. The Amendment we have put down to this Clause is to leave out the words
but shall not, save as hereinafter expressly provided, themselves generate electricity.
Why should not a Board faced with difficulties put up by private enterprise generate electric power? If they are not to have that right, why are they to have any rights as to the distribution of the power There is no logic in it. There, again, we see the claw of private enterprise. The big risks and expenses lie in distribution; the kudos and the money are obtained through the simple process of generating electricity. That is why we have all these inconsistencies with regard to the production and the distribution of electricity. The reference that was made to Clause 4 shows just exactly the farce that is being created by this Bill. First of all we have got a Board. We do not know what that Board is going to be like—it will be dependent on a choice. When we have that Board and have got it working, it will be mixed up with—supposed to be working in conjunction with—the Electricity Commissioners. What I have always protested against is that you can never get any satisfaction either large or small from an organisation in a business where you have a body of men, some of whom understand the subject and some who do not. The result is that you never come to any considered opinion; it resolves itself into a question of voting power and that is bad business. The whole of this Bill depends entirely upon what the Board is going to be by its membership. If we are lucky in getting a good Board—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is now dealing with the constitution of the board. I would like to point out that Clause 2 deals only with the powers and duties of the Board.

Mr. HARDIE: I was trying to point out that the success of the work of the board depends upon the character of the men who form it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I point, out that Clause 1 deals with the constitution, and on Clause 2 we can only discuss what the members of the board have to do.

Mr. HARDIE: I am simply pointing out that under this Clause the members of the Board do not know what they have to do. Here you are proposing to appoint men at a large salary, and they are not told what their duties are going to be. It was suggested that one ought to be a highly trained lawyer, but he would not know a lot about the electricity business. Everything depends entirely upon the character of the men comprising the board, and if we are lucky to get a good board something may be done to improve matters. If, however, we do not succeed this respect, tins Measure will lead to an increase in the cost of the production and distribution of electricity all over the country.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is certainly no part of my duty to defend the Government against the charge of betrayal which has been made from the back Conservative benches. The hon. Member for Hampstead has accused the Conservative Government of having betrayed its followers by embarking upon a Bill which introduces Socialism wholesale. I do not agree with that statement, although I think this Measure will make a good starting point when a Socialist Government gets a chance of legislating. I suggest to the hon. Member for Hampstead that it is not the Government that has betrayed them because they still believe very strongly in private enterprise, but they have been betrayed by the circumstances of the case. I do not believe for a single moment that the Conservative Government believes in Socialism. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill is, I believe, the president of the Anti-Socialist Union, and he does not believe in Socialism, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see Socialism established in this country by his Government or any other party.
This Bill has been introduced because it is recognised that in this country we are in an extremely backward situation as far as the supply of electrical current is concerned, and this Measure has been introduced because it has been recog-
nised that commercial and manufacturing efficiency depends to a very large extent at the present moment, and also in the future, upon the provision of the cheap supply of electrical power. This Measure has been introduced because these facts are clearly recognised, and because we have a tremendous amount of leeway to make up. I am convinced that the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister have, after their review of the situation, come to the conclusion that private enterprise is not capable of remedying the present situation inside a reasonable time, or within such a period as would give our traders a chance of competing in the foreign markets of the world. That is why this Bill has been introduced.
I do not believe this Measure will meet the situation which exists in this country to-day. I think it will fail, and experience will show that it is only a halfhearted Measure. The hon. Member for Hampstead has said that no case has been made out for public control on this question. If I understand the facts aright, in London they show that municipal ownership in the city of London has proved more efficient and cheaper than private enterprise, and that the supply of electricity by municipalities in London has proved to be cheaper and more efficient than private companies operating in the same areas. We know that, with perhaps one or two rare exceptions, our great municipalities have operated in regard to electrical undertakings as efficiently and more cheaply than most private companies. There is certainly one outstanding exception in the North Eastern Power Company, which operates in Northumberland and Durham over a much larger area than would be possible in the case of a municipality, and which has access to a volume of trade which is denied to most municipalities. I repeat that in regard to this Bill the circumstances and the facts have betrayed hon. Members opposite, and it is a very remarkable testimony to the growing necessities of our times that a Conservative Government has been compelled by the actual facts of the case to recognise that private enterprise has broken down completely in regard to a vital supply like electricity.
I was reading a speech a short time ago by Governor Smith of New York. He was dealing with the question of
electric current in the United States, and he was commenting upon the great stations at Niagara erected in the very home of individualism and anti-Socialism where there is no Labour or Socialist party occupying the position which we occupy in this country. Governor Smith said that so far as their system crippled the supply of electricity it would have to go, and that all boundaries laid down by State agencies would have to disappear. He was arguing in favour of State control and State ownership, and he suggested that the time was not far off when the Canadian and the United States Governments might be called upon to operate upon an international basis for the supply of this vital necessity as opposed to its control by private enterprise and private companies. That is a very remarkable testimony to the necessity that is arising in the realm of industry and commerce for the destruction of these bonds that are cramping our industry at the present moment. We are only taking the line here that has already been foreshadowed by private enterprise itself, and it is amazing that from the apostles of private enterprise there should be this tremendous objection to State control in this case, while they have no objection to international control in their own industries provided that the international trusts which they impose give them an unlimited control over the dividends and profits wrung from their consumers.
We on this side have no idea of setting up a bureaucracy. The Attorney-General spoke of this as an attempt to prevent the growth of bureaucracy. It is quite a mistake to assume that Socialists are in love with bureaucracy any more than any other party is. We have no more idea than other parties of creating an officialism, but the Manchester municipality is not a bureaucracy in any sense of the term, and we who are putting forward this Socialist theory are prepared that municipalities should retain as much power as possible. We want as much decentralisation as possible, but here we would say that, in certain aspects of the supply of electricity, State control is necessary. This Bill, however, does not conform to the necessities of the case. Although the Government will bring it into operation, and will probably do the best they can under the cramping condi-
tions which the Bill itself lays down—with, all the time, the active opposition of companies represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will attempt to crab the pitch of their own Government's Measure and hamper it as much as they possibly can—in spite of all that can be done by the Commissioners, who also are going to be hampered by business, although I cannot discuss that on this occasion, the Measure will be ineffective to meet the demands of the situation, and will not bring that quick relief to hampered and harassed traders that our commercial situation demands and requires. Alongside the development that is taking place on the Continent amongst our great competitors, highly organised

on a scientific basis, this weak attempt to meet the attacks on our foreign trade and commerce will fail because of the half-hearted nature of the efforts of the Government themselves.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "and" in line 16.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 111.

Division No. 449.]
AYES.
[8.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Albery, Irving James
Fermoy, Lord
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, F. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Forrest, W.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Atkinson, C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B M.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Moore Sir Newton J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Goff. Sir Park
Murchison, C. K.


Birshall, Major J. Dearman
Grace, John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Blundell, F. N.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oakley, T.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipson, Mabel


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pielou, D. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pilcher, G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilditch, Sir Phillp


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remnant, Sir James


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rentoul, G. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cassels, J. D.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chadwick, sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)


Cope, Major William
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sandon, Lord


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Lt-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Witts, Westb'y)


Danes, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Dean, Arthur Weilesley
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Dixey. A. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Smithers, Waldron


Drews, C.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Edmondson. Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


England, Colonel A.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Storry-Deans, R.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Womersley, W. J


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watts, Dr. T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



Tinne, J. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Captain Viscount Curzon and


Waddington, R.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Captain Margesson.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Withers, John James



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Amman, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stamford, T. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Kirk wood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Windsor, Waller


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall. F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the Board shall not delegate any of their powers in respect to selected stations without the consent of the owners of those stations.

Mr. HERBERT: Does not my Amendment come first?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood from Mr. Speaker that that was not to be moved—that the discussion was to comprise the three Amendments in the hon. Member's name, and that subsequent Amendments were not to be moved.

Mr. HERBERT: I agree that it was not to be discussed, but I was under the impression, none the less, that we should have the right to move it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. If the hon. Member wishes to move the last Amendment in order to take a, Division on the matter of principle, I will accept it.

Mr. HANNON: This has been the subject of considerable discussion. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is prepared to accept it. [Interruption.] I should have said I understand the Attorney-General will accept it. It is submitted in order to protect the London area and other areas where under a recent Act of Parliament certain rights had been conferred upon them, and obviously it would be very improper in a Measure of this kind to upset rights already established by preceding Acts of Parliament.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.0 P.M.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is a matter which has been the subject of a good deal of discussion between those interested in the Bill. It seems not unreasonable that before you delegate powers which are in the aggregate very wide, the owners of the selected stations in any area affected should first have to give their consent. After all, the House is setting up the Board; the public will know who the Board is, and the owners of stations will know who the Board is, and before the owners are asked to accept a delegation of powers, it is not unreasonable that they should be consulted. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who is intimately connected with one of the principal electricity authorities of the country, thinks the proposal not an unreasonable one, and that possibly is why my hon. Friend who moved it referred to his assent rather than to that of the Government. I understand the hon. Member opposite sees no objection to it so far as the joint electricity authorities are concerned, and the Government think it not unreasonable, and if the House sees fit to accept it, it may tend to alleviate the apprehensions of some of those whose undertakings are undoubtedly affected by the Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: This is rather a difficult Clause, and the Amendment is aimed at rather restricting the power. We have in the Clause power to delegate the powers of the Board to authorised undertakings. I should like to have seen that restricted to public authorities. It has not been so restricted, and I have to consider what may happen under the Clause. It is possible that in a joint electricity authority area the powers might be delegated to a joint electricity authority, and they might have the power of selecting stations. As a member of a joint electricity authority. I should like that. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to select, say, the Barking station, and make it into a public station for all London. But in other areas it may be different. The power of delegation might be given to a power company. The power company might then be able to select a municipal station and take it
away. And on the whole I think this proposed Amendment, although I do not think it is going necessarily to be helpful to me in London, is a wise one considering that we know so very little about what the Board may be, what they may do, and to whom the powers may be delegated. That is why I should not oppose it, although I do not welcome it specially. The delegation Clause is unsatisfactory at the present time, but I think this Amendment does safeguard the position of authorised undertakers.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am very glad that the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment. I think he is wise and prudent. I can understand the position of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) who happens to be a member of a joint electricity authority who, in due course, are going to erect power stations with the assistance of State finance or the guarantee of the London County Council. I am sure that they have sufficient fish to fry in London. I am glad that, for once, under the pressure of my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), who has done a great deal of work in regard to this matter, and with the assent of the hon. Member for Lime-house, we have got one tiny little improvement in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Appointment of consultative technical committees.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out the word "owning", and to insert instead thereof the word "comprising."
The undertakings do not "own"; therefore the appropriate word is "comprising."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation and carrying out of scheme.)

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after the word "lines," to insert the words
belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or.
I hope that, at last, I have come to an Amendment which the Government will see fit to accept. I understand that
the Government do not propose and never intended that what is called the grid should necessarily be entirely owned and run by the Board or by the Commissioners. Assuming that to be the intention of the Government, the words of this Amendment might almost be described as a drafting Amendment, because it is to make paragraph (b) read, that one of the duties of the board is that of
providing for inter-connection, by means of main transmission lines
not merely to be constructed or acquired by the Board, but
belonging to or to be constructed by authorised undertakers within the area of the scheme or constructed or acquired by the Board, etc.
As the Bill already does provide that the main transmission lines are in certain eases to be provided by the authorised undertakers and not by the Board, I hope the Attorney-General will regard my Amendment as an improvement and as one necessary to make the Bill consistent.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think it important that a provision of this kind should be adopted. Paragraph (b) says that provision shall be made for
providing for inter-connection, by means of main transmission lines, to be constructed or acquired by the Board, etc.
It may be well be that the existing transmission lines will serve the purpose, and there seems to be no reason why the Board should acquire them and thereby probably dislocate the local area scheme of the present owners of the transmission line, or why the Board should build a parallel transmission line far the purpose of their scheme. We pointed out in Committee upstairs that unless the fullest possible use is made of existing transmission lines and of those which from time to time may be necessary or will be necessary for the local undertaking, a duplication will result which is hound to entail unnecessary expenditure in maintenance charges, staffs, and so on. So long as the interconnection is achieved, and so long as the scheme of the Board is fulfilled, it does not seem to be necessary to insist that the main transmission lines which achieve the object should either be constructed by or be acquired by the Board. With that object
in view, and purely in the interests of economy in construction, avoiding unnecessary duplication and maintenance charges, it seems to be desirable from every point of view that this Amendment should be accepted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It was quite logical to put down this Amendment at the time when the Amendment proposed for Clause 2 had still to be considered and discussed by the House, because if the Amendment then proposed had been carried, and the duty of supplying electricity had been taken away from the Board, it would then have followed that the Board ought not to own or acquire the transmission lines, because they would no longer be charged with the duty of supplying. Once the duty of supplying is imposed upon them, as it is by the decision of the House in Clause 2, then it seems to me to follow that the transmission lines which are necessary to the supply ought to be constructed or acquired by the Board as provided in the Clause. It is not intended and it cannot be intended that the Board should construct main transmission lines when such lines already exist. That is why the words "to be constructed or acquired" are put in. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 8, they will find there elaborate provision for the Board constructing in some cases and acquiring in other cases main transmission lines, as may be thought the most economical and convenient. It is intended, as the House has decided, that the Board is to be the authority which is to supply the electricity which it acquires from the selected station, and for that purpose it is in our view convenient and necessary for the Board to own the main transmission lines.

Mr. BALFOUR: The Attorney-General says that it would be logical to insert this Amendment had the Amendment proposed in Clause 2 been accepted, but I submit that not only would it have been logical in those circumstances, but it is still logical, because we are still pursuing the same point. We intend to hang on to the same point, which is, in the first instance, the right of the undertaker, whether a municipal authority or a private undertaker, to have the power to construct within their area whatever is necessary for the electricity supply of this country, and if they fail to do it there should be nothing to stand in the
way of the central authority carrying out that work. For that reason, this Amendment is now proposed, not in any way to hamper the operations which my right hon. and learned Friend has in view in this Bill, that the Central Board shall have the right to construct main transmission lines in order to give the necessary supply. The central authority should not only have the right to construct those lines, but also construct lines if they find that the authority charged with the duty of supplying electricity in a district, namely, the private undertaker or the municipal authority, refuses to construct those lines within their area for the purpose of supply under the scheme set up in this Bill.
The Attorney-General has said that, once the duty of supply has been imposed on the Central Board, then, of course, they must own the transmission lines. Not at all. I can quite understand that, in making that observation, he was stating what he believed to be a fact; but there is no necessity for it whatever. The fact that the Central Board turns out its current from the central station does not mean, necessarily, that they should own the transmission lines over which the current is conveyed. As long as the current is conveyed at the most economical rates it does not matter whether they own the lines or have the power to construct them. The whole difficulty in discussing all these points is that we are doing so with Ministers who, of necessity, are not able to visualise how a particular Clause will operate in everyday life.
I wonder if any further pleading would soften the heart of the Attorney-General and divert him from the evil courses he has adopted in recent months, bring him back to those other paths which have been pursued so long by the party of which he is a distinguished member, and induce him to give up his support of this Socialist measure. The Central Board has not only the power to transmit the current over these main lines, and take over the current at a selected station; they are the overriding authority, and are able to decide the destinies of any authorised undertakers in the areas. I think we have a right to say that we will have either private enterprise or a Socialist system—one or
the other. We cannot sit down tamely and submit to a scheme which is based on Socialistic ideas and supported by State funds competing with private enterprises which have to pay their way, find their funds and earn their bread. The thing is impossible, and I again appeal to the Attorney-General: Does he still intend to pursue this Socialistic course or is he going to stand by principles which have actuated the party with which he has been associated for so many years?

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out the words
subject to the provisions of Section 9 of this Act.
This Amendment, which seems to have excited the curiosity of some hon. Members, is really only a drafting Amendment. The reason for it is that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are all subject to the provisions of the succeeding Clauses and we should logically have to put in (a) "subject to Clauses 5 and 6," in (b) "subject to Clause 8," and in (c) "subject to Clause 9." If we put this in in one case and not in another it might raise difficulties, because a Court of Law may say that there is some distinction drawn between paragraphs (a) and (b) if such words were inserted and paragraph (c) if such words were not inserted. The matter will come up under Clause 9 when I will move an Amendment on the point.

Sir J. NALL: I doubt very much whether this is really a drafting Amendment. In effect, I think, it will require an Amendment in Clause 9. Clause. 9 says
The Board may require ally authorised undertakers,
And so on, when there is a change of frequency. If the Attorney-General alters that an I says that "the Board does require any authorised undertakers," then whenever the Board requires a change of frequency, Clause 9 will operate. Clause 4 says that
the Electricity Commissioners shall as soon as practicable prepare and transmit to the Board a scheme or schemes relating to the respective areas.
One of the provisions in the scheme is that it shall provide for inter-communications and such standardisation as may
be necessary. The Attorney-General has intimated that he will introduce an Amendment in Clause 9 at a later stage, and I want to make it quite clear that when a scheme providing for a change of frequency is made the cost is not to be thrown on the small local undertaking under the provisions of the 1919 Act. I understood the Attorney-General to say that where the Board wants a change to be made, then the Board is to arrange the finance in accordance with Clause 9. Is it quite clear that Clause 9 will and must be called into operation in every case where a scheme under Clause 4 involves a change of frequency?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Member. The Clause we are now discussing stipulates what are the matters which are to be in the scheme, and the succeeding Clauses proceed to work that out. In the case of standardisation it is worked out in Clause 9, and the terms on which standardisation are to become operative are to be found in Clause 9. I am prepared to move an Amendment on that Clause making it quite clear that the cost of standardisation in areas covered by a scheme are not to fall on individual undertakings.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GRANT: I beg to move in page 4, line 29, after the word "any" to insert the word "tramway."
There is a desire on the part of tramway companies that it should be made clear that a private generating station shall not be chosen as a selected station. I do not suppose the Government contemplates that the generating station of a private company will come under the operation of the Bill, and it is inconceivable that they should. The language of paragraph (a) of this Clause, however, is such that the question is not quite clear, and it is possible for the generating station of a private company to become a selected station. There is a provision in the Bill which protects railway companies and private individuals, and tramway companies, very reasonably, ask that they may be placed in a similar position. I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the desires of the tramways.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple, that a tramway generating station shall not without the consent of the owners be a selected station. The Bill provides that generating stations belonging to railway, canal and dock undertakings shall not without the consent of the owners become selected stations. I think we should not place any difficulties in the way of big areas. Take Glasgow, with its tram system. It is quite easy to see that difficulties could arise there unless we have this word inserted. It ought to be the duty of the Government to see that on occasions like this there should be that protection given which is given to others. I think the word "tramways" should be included so as to get no interruption in the tramway systems without the consent of the owners.

Colonel ASHLEY: It seems to the Government that, on the whole, this Amendment ought not to be accepted. So far as we know, there are no existing tramway generating stations which would be included. As my hon. Friend knows, this Clause, in which he wishes the word to be inserted deals only with existing stations. Therefore, so far as we can see, none of these tramway generating stations would come within the purview of the Bill, because they are unsuitable. I have another reason which makes it more difficult to accept the Amendment, apart from the fact that they are not going to be taken. It is that certain of these tramway companies are authorised undertakers. Putting this word in would definitely exclude these tramway companies which were authorised undertakers from the purview of the Bill, which seems wrong, especially as it might be necessary to ask some of these stations to help temporarily till the scheme had gone through.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it to be understood that., taking the city of Glasgow, if circumstances as suggested in the Minister's speech should arise, he would consult with the Corporation of Glasgow, who own the tramway system, before he did anything in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I certainly would consult the Corporation.

Mr. BALFOUR: Does my hon. Friend seriously apprehend any difficulty? It seems to me that in most cases a tramway station would be similar to a station owned by a canal, inland navigation or dock company. It seems to me there can be no harm from the point of view of my hon. Friend of inserting the word "tramway." There can be no possible harm in giving that protection given to those other parties.

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out the word "the," and to insert instead thereof the word "a."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, at the end, to insert the words
and the scheme shall not authorise the acquisition of a main transmission line belonging to the owners of a private generating station without the consent of the owners thereof.
This is really a drafting Amendment, although it looks a little more. We are really bringing into Clause 4 words already in Clause 8, Sub-section (2) which more logically come in in Clause 4.

Mr. G. HURST: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "to," to insert the words "any such undertakers or."
This Amendment has been put down at the suggestion of the Manchester Ship Canal Company with a view to obviating what appears at first sight an injustice to owners of navigation, dock and harbour undertakings. I understand the Attorney-General is willing to accept it. I shall say nothing except that it brings in line with the owners of private generating stations the owners of canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertakings.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. BALFOUR: Before the main Amendment is put, I wonder if my right
hon. Friend has considered the conditions of owners of main transmission lines in private hands connecting over large distances and giving supplies under the 1909 Act. to a large number of consumers for general purposes of supply. Maybe one of those lines, owing to the confusion into which our legislation is getting, may become one of the Main transmission lines over a large tract of country, under private hands, not planted there because they have any particular statutory power, but because-it cannot be stopped now under the 1909 Act. That main transmission line may be run by private traders over large tracts of land and they could not have any jurisdiction over it. My right hon. Friend might say, "Why do you raise this point? It is a point which M obviously in favour of private enterprise." I raise it because I think we should raise every point which will make for clean and straight legislation and will save confusion.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to have some information on this matter. The Amendment refers to a "generating station without the consent of the owners thereof." Suppose that the Commissioners find themselves in the position that they require a line as described in this addition. If the owners do not consent, what is the position of the Commissioners or the Government? Are they to say that the scheme cannot develop further because the owners do not consent? Will they say to the owners, "We are sorry you do not consent, but we cannot help it because the Bill gives us no power"? Are the Government to be held up by someone who holds privately something which stands in the way of development?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I seem to have raised more alarms than the Amendment justifies. If the House will look at page 9, they will see, in line 35, exactly the provision that we are now discussing
Provided that a main transmission line belonging to the owners of a private generating station shall not he acquired without the consent of the owners thereof.
I am merely transplanting that proviso from Clause 8 to Clause 4, to which it more properly belongs. The proviso is necessary in order to prevent the Board coming along and taking possession of
some transmission line which is used by a private generating station, and used for its own purposes. The Board ought not to be allowed to take such a transmission line; they ought only to be allowed to take main transmission lines which belong to a system for distributing electricity, that is to say, belong to an authorised undertaker. If there were merely a main transmission line belonging to some private colliery company or undertaking of that kind, the Board would not be entitled to take it. If there were not a main transmission line in that district they would have to lay one down.

Mr. HARDIE: There has been much talk, in connection with this Bill, of developing electricity. Here is a line that could carry both quite easily, but because this Bill is not a Bill that sets out to do for the nation the first thing that it should do—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member began by asking a question, but he is now doing mole than that.

Mr. HARDIE: I will put my question. In a ease such as I have stated, where a line can carry both supplies, is there to be nothing in the Bill to prevent needless expenditure on another line?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is nothing in the Bill, as it came through Committee or in my proposals, to compel the owner of a private line to hand it over for public purposes.

Mr. HARDIE: It plays into the hands of private enterprise all the time, yet it is said to be a Socialist Bill.

Mr. BALFOUR: Would the learned Attorney-General tell the House how far he intends to proceed with the Bill to-night?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understand that there is some question of a Prayer coming on later this evening. Therefore, it we can get to the end of Clause 5 I should be content, and probably that would meet the convenience of the House.
Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 36, leave out the second word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "every."—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the words "specified area or areas," and to insert instead thereof the words "part of the area specified in the scheme."
I understand that the Government will accept this and a further Amendment in my name.

Mr. HURST: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Government propose to accept this and a consequential Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment, I understand, is to remove an ambiguity and to make it clear that the Board can, if it please, adopt a scheme for part only of an area, and go on to the other part later. That is obviously desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 5, leave out the words "certain areas," and insert instead thereof the words "part of the said area."

In line 6, leave out the word "areas," and insert instead thereof the words "parts of the area."—[Sir J. Nall.]

In page 5, line 7, leave out the word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "a."—[The Attorney-General.]

In page 5, line 8, leave out the word "area" and insert instead thereof the words "part of the area specified therein."

In line 11, after the word "within" insert the words "the said part of."—[Sir J. Nall.]

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir J. NALL:

In page 5, line 19, to leave out from the second "the" to the word "and" in line 24, and to insert instead thereof the words "tribunal of appeal by this Act constituted."

In page 5, line 30, to leave out the word "arbitrator" and to insert instead thereof the word "tribunal."

In page 5, line 31, to leave out the words "he thinks" and to insert instead thereof the words "they think."

In page 5, line 38, to leave out the word "he" and to insert instead thereof the words "the tribunal."

Mr. SPEAKER: These four Amendments fall to the ground, as they are dependent on a proposed New Clause which the House did not accept.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 39 to 43 inclusive.
The object of this Amendment is to delete a proviso regarding appeals. The House will observe that Sub-section (4) reads as follows:
The arbitrator to whom any such matter is so referred may, in any case in which he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors, and may, if satisfied as to the justice of the complaint, either order such pecuniary compensation to be made to the complainants as seems equitable in all the circumstances or order the scheme to be amended in such manner as he may direct:>
That is quite a clear direction as to what the arbitrators may do, but the proviso which I desire to leave out goes on to say:
Provided that the arbitrator shall not grant any relief other than pecuniary compensation in any case where the Board certify that the grant of such relief would conflict with the basic principles of the scheme or would prejudicially affect the efficiency of the scheme.
That is an extraordinary provision. In effect, it is that the respondent before the Court may say to the Court, "You must not find against me, because the Act under which you have been set up directs that you must find for me except in a very limited number of cases where you may grant a sum of money." After what fell from Attorney-General earlier as to the wide scope of appeal provided in Clause 4, and as to how all the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects—which I endeavoured to show are overridden by this Bill—would be covered by the provision for arbitration, I think the claim that this proposed arbitration covers the loss of the subject's historic right of appeal to this House if he thinks himself aggrieved falls to the ground when we read that proviso. The arbitrator may not alter the scheme, and may not find for the appellant, if the respondent says that he does not want him to do so because it would upset the respondent's ideas, but the arbitrator may grant some money. It may not be practicable in certain instances to meet a case by an award of money. It may be that the need of some adjustment in the
scheme will be clearly proved and that some revision in the proposals of the Board ought to be made, that there is no need for a money grant and that, in fact, the money having been granted some blemish may still exist in the scheme which will prejudice its operation for all time. I do not see why there should be this bias in favour of the respondent Board, because it is to be assumed that in these cases the appellants will be undertakings prejudicially affected by the provisions of the scheme.
The number of people who can make these appeals at all is very limited in any case. The ordinary right of appealing to Parliament during the consideration of a private Bill or provisional Order has been thrown overboard. It no longer exists and the schemes of this central board—this public trust administering a public service, and comparable in some cases to the great municipalities or the statutory companies—will have the force of law which will endow them with all the rights, privileges and prerogatives usually associated with the private Bill legislation of statutory companies or municipalities. The bodies who are to be controlled, expropriated, prejudiced, possibly ruined by the operations of the scheme are, by this Bill, denied any access to Parliament or any appeal to the Courts. They have only this limited reference to the arbitrator, and now in this proviso the very scheme of which they complain may not be amended by the arbitrator if the respondents say it will upset their scheme to do so. All that can happen is that some cash payment may be made. It is a travesty of cur constitutional procedure in the first place that a limited and extraordinary, a chaotic and possibly inconsistent system of arbitration should be set up, but it is a travesty even of that system that this proviso should remain in the Bill and that nothing but a cash payment should be possible if, in fact, the respondent board make out a case for that kind of award. The Government spokesman said he hoped to satisfy the Chambers of Commerce and the other organisations who made representations on the question of appeal that he had met the outraged feelings of constitutionalists, and that the ancient right of the people to appeal to Parliament would would be preserved. If he really is consistent, and if he wants to make good the
claim which he has advanced, he ought to drop this proviso and allow the arbitrator to function effectively and with some chance of doing some small justice to those who may be ruined by the operations of the scheme.

Mr. R. HUDSON: On a point of Order. I submit that the point which my lion, and gallant Friend has just made is covered by the rejection earlier in the day of the proposed new Clause dealing with the tribunal of appeal. That Clause endeavoured to give wider powers to the arbitrator, and the same arguments were put forward as are being put forward now and the House rejected it. An attempt is now being made again to widen the functions of the arbitrator.

Sir J. NALL: I submit this particular aspect of the arbitration was not mentioned at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the new Clause which the House rejected simply proposed to sot up the arbitration, and did not deal with the subject of the arbitration.

Sir J. NALL: The House discussed the setting up of the tribunal but did no1 proceed to discuss its functions, because the consequential Clause was not moved.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I ask hon. Members to visualise the exact position of the Board. The Board is to prepare a schema, and they may determine that it is necessary to bring within the scope of that scheme a large number of properties. They may be faced with the difficulty of saying: "It is very unfair to these people to have to take over this property, and many arguments could be advanced that it is better in the public interest to leave it out of the scheme, and while it may seriously affect them it will not be much good to us." But the answer to that will be: "What does it matter I They have no right to stop us putting this into the scheme. They cannot prevent us ultimately doing so, and all we have to do is to pay them. Out of what fund do we pay? We pay out of a fund of which £33,500,000 is guaranteed by the Treasury, and it does not matter to us on the Board. We want to see this
scheme work smoothly for the electricity supply of this country, and the cost does not matter. We have no direct personal responsibility for the money. We are simply a public Board, and therefore we will arrange our scheme on a grandiose scale, and anybody who is damnified can make a representation, but they cannot make any representation ultimately to show that it is a foolish thing or to alter it." All that they can get is money, and the money is to be put up by the British taxpayer, or, at any rate, if put up by public subscription direct to the Board, is to he guaranteed by the British taxpayer, and the ultimate responsibility for the whole of the money under this scheme must inevitably lie on the British taxpayer.
I cannot understand—I may be and possibly am a very dense person, but I am concerned honestly to try to find out—what it is that our Ministers are trying to do in insisting on keeping in Clauses and Sub-sections like this. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is advised that it is necessary for the scheme, or that there are opportunities of making Parliamentary representation when the scheme is set up, but I submit most respectfully that all those arguments are not sufficient when it comes to the test of experience, when these matters are handled by people who know nothing of what we are talking about here to-clay, but who must take the Acts of Parliament as they find them. My right hon. Friend may say: "The same old story." It is the same old story, the Constitutional story, the thing we will never let go so long as we are fighting on this or any other Bill. We must go back to the basic facts on this Bill or any other Bill. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite fight for the other thing. They are quite right. It is what they come here to do, and I should never deride them for doing it, but for Heaven's sake let us, on these benches, stick to the other thing and fight the Constitutional issue.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) wound up an emphatic appeal by saying: "Let us fight for the other thing." But I am in considerable doubt as to exactly what "the other thing" was. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J.
Nall), who moved the Amendment, told us that this Bill was a travesty of our Constitutional procedure, that it created a limited and chaotic right of appeal, and that the Board were entitled to say: "You may not find against me, because I certify that you have got to decide an appeal in my favour." All that I can say is, first of all, that my hon. Friends seem to have misappreciated altogether what the powers conferred by this Clause are, and, secondly, they seem to have misappreciated altogether the functions and position of the Board. This Clause is one which enacts, first of all, that the Electricity Commissioners are to prepare a scheme. They are a body to whose competence my hon. Friends, at any rate, pay lip service, and whom they admit to be, as in fact they are, the most competent electrical authorities in the country. The scheme, having been prepared by these high electrical authorities, is published by the Board in order that everybody interested may have a full opportunity of stating his case. There is express provision made that everyone who is interested may make representations, and the Board is hound to consider those representations. Of course, if you start with the hypothesis that the Board is the sort of body which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead described, who will say: "What does it matter what it costs l We will go ahead; we are simply a public body, and it does not matter what we spend, because the British taxpayer will have to find the money"—if you start with that hypothesis, you had better have no Bill at all.

Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!

10.0 P.M.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend is quite consistent. He would rather not have the Bill at all, but I am trying to address a House of Commons which is accepting this Bill, and when my hon. Friend asks me what it is that Ministers are trying to do, I answer that what we are trying to do is to ensure in this Bill that we shall have an effective Bill which will cheapen the cost of electricity to the consumers of this country, and it is with that object in view that we have provisos of this kind. Let me follow up what will happen. The scheme, having been prepared by the Commissioners, having been submitted
to the Board and considered by them, having been published and representations made by all the parties interested, the Board have to consider those representations and then either accept, modify, or confirm the scheme. When the Board has confirmed the scheme, then, under Subsection (3), it is the duty of the Board to carry it out without waiting any further. There is a proviso there that any authorised undertakers on whom obligations are imposed by the scheme, if they think they are prejudiced, have a right of appeal. On that appeal, if their objections can be met without prejudicially affecting the efficiency of the scheme, there is power given to the arbitrator to direct such a modification, but if their objections are such that they cannot be met without destroying the efficiency of the scheme, the arbitrator cannot wreck the scheme, which ex hypothesi has already been approved and commenced to be put into operation, but in that ease, in order that the position of the particular undertaker may be fully safeguarded, he is to be given financial compensation; in other words, he is to be paid what in a Court of Law is usually the reward of a successful claimant—he is to be given damages. Why the power to give damages should be considered a travesty of our Constitutional procedure, I am at a loss to understand, because in the Law Courts, with which I am familiar, that is the normal and recognised Constitutional procedure for remedying a wrong. Damages are the appropriate remedy.
Of course, if the Board is an unreasonable or dishonest body, which is determined to carry through any scheme, however grandiose and absurd, at whatever cost, by misusing its powers, the scheme will not work, but if the Board is, as we believe and intend that it shall be, a businesslike body, carrying out a great public duty on businesslike lines, there can he no reason at all why the Board should not be allowed to say, in a given case: "We cannot alter this scheme, which has been considered and approved, because to alter it would destroy the whole basis of it"; but if the arbitrator comes to the conclusion that the scheme, as framed, does prejudicially affect any individual, that individual has to be compensated for the injury he sustains, and how it can be said that a man is wronged because he
is given financial compensation for an injury, I am again rather at a loss to understand. This Clause was elaborately thrashed out in Committee. The Committee was satisfied, as I hope the House will be, that it is a reasonable and fair protection, and that to go further would be to imperil the whole operation of the scheme. Therefore, I ask the House to endorse the decision of the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
Any scheme made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after it has been finally adopted by the Board, and shall not come into force unless and until it has been approved either with or without modification by a Resolution passed by each such House.
This Amendment is intended to provide that any schemes under this Clause shall have the approval of Parliament before they become effective. One of the principal criticisms which has been made against this Bill is that Parliament is invited to delegate its powers to a bureaucratic or autocratic body, and the object of this Amendment is to try to preserve the control of Parliament in order to protect those whose interests are affected by a scheme of this kind, to give them the cherished right which the subject has always had—an appeal to Parliament in cases of this kind. We have just been discussing the question of an appeal, which I may describe as being an appeal rather on a matter of detail where the Bill provides that an award of damages may be given in the case of a person who suffers through this particular scheme. But there is something much more important here than the question of an individual person or corporation who is suffering damages. It is really a constitutional point of very considerable importance, and it is a matter of very deep regret that a Conservative Government—although we have had a Labour Government in office—should be the first Government in this country to give away in a wholesale manner this right of the appeal of an individual to Parliament in cases of this kind. I know that the Government in this matter, at any rate as their views are expressed by the Attorney-General, rather like a young woman in a
hurry, are particularly anxious that nothing should be done or put into this Bill which shall in any way delay the carrying out of the schemes under the Bill. But I venture to suggest that the very short delay which would be required by making it necessary to obtain the assent of Parliament to a scheme of this kind 's well worth what is involved in it.
I am glad that at the present moment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is on the Front Bench, because I am going to quote in support of this Amendment something which happened in the setting up of the London and home counties area, with which he is well acquainted. It was only after a considerable struggle that we reserved the rights of Parliament with regard to the setting up of those electricity areas. In that case it was necessary for the Order constituting the London and home counties area to obtain with or without modification the assent of both Houses of Parliament. It will be within the recollection of everyone interested in the question of electricity that the Electricity Commissioners made about as big a mess of that business as any bureaucratic body has ever done in the last 50 years. The first thing they did was to produce a. scheme which the Courts declared ultra vires. They then had inquiries, at the cost of a small fortune to the ratepayers. [An HON MEMBERS: "Lawyers' fees!"] Yes, lawyers' fees; all done because this business was handed over to a bureaucratic body instead of being left to Parliament to decide, and the consumers had to pay. They produced another scheme and the wisdom was shown of Parliament having reserved to itself the right to approve that scheme with or without modification. I was fortunate, as events have subsequently proved, with the help, if I may acknowledge it as such, of the Parliamentary Secretary to the. Ministry of Transport in getting a modification of that Order, which I do not hesitate to say was of the greatest possible value to my constituents and to all those concerned in the matter of the London and Home Counties Order. I do think this is a case where we ought to be met. Many times during the progress of this Bill we back bench Members of the Conservative party who regard ourselves as not reactionaries, and I do
not think anybody has ever accused me of being reactionary, but as people who do maintain the basic principles of the Conservative party, are entitled to ask that our leaders will at, least do something to show that they still have, some regard for the rights of Parliament and the rights of those who may be affected in matters of this kind to have their case fully considered by Parliament.

Mr. HARDIE: At General Elections.

Mr. HERBERT: So far as elections are concerned, if that is a question to be considered in connection with this Amendment, I can only tell the leaders of our party on the Front Bench that it is the experience of many of us that their attempt to steal the thunder of the party opposite has been an inartistic one, the main effect of which has been to lose to a very great extent the sympathy and support of those who have always been Members of their party. In this case I ask, and I ask earnestly, that the right of Parliament to a final voice in the production of these great schemes may be reserved. If the schemes are good ones, there will be not the slightest difficulty in getting the approval of Parliament. If the schemes are bad ones, the reservation of that right of control in the last resort by Parliament will be a thing for which the authors of this Bill may well be thankful in the future as it may save them somewhat from things happening from this Bill that they would regret as much as anyone in this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: As soon as I called on the hon. and learned Member, my attention was called to Sub-section (3) of this Clause which we have already passed, which provides that as soon as the scheme is disposed of, it is the duty of the Board to carry out and give effect to the scheme, and then follows the proviso. It seems to me that the present Amendment would conflict with that, and would be inconsistent with the Clause. I would hear the hon. and learned Member, for it seems to me quite clear that we should have two contradictory proposals in the same Clause, which would not do.

Mr. HERBERT: I did not quite catch the exact passage to which you refer, although I realise the point.

Mr. SPEAKER: The whole of Subsection (3) seems to be a definite direc-
tion that the Board proceed to carry out the scheme, and this Amendment would make Sub-section (3) of no effect.

Mr. HERBERT: I am very much obliged to you for what you have said, because, if I may say so with respect, what you have said leads me to think that perhaps my Amendment is not quite correctly worded, but I think it will be realised that a proviso at the end of a Clause governs the whole of the Clause that goes before, though it may be that the words of my Amendment may be not quite accurate. The intention, of course, is that the proviso which I have proposed shall govern the whole of the Clause which precedes it, and, therefore, perhaps it might be that my Amendment should be worded in some such way as to say that the scheme shall not be "put into operation" until it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, and so on. But I venture, if I may with all respect, to suggest that my Amendment cannot be altogether out of order, because of the fact that it is a proviso coming at the end tending to qualify the whole, and if it be that the words require a slight alteration, it is only a matter of drafting, and not a matter of substance.

Mr. BALFOUR: Might I ask whether your attention has been called to the words in Sub-section (3)?—
and shall not, pending the determination of the complaint, carry the scheme into effect so far as it affects the complainants.
So that the matter will be in suspense until it is determined, and the matter of pecuniary compensation could be left out entirely, and still not affect the matter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I point out that both my hon. Friends seem to have misapprehended what. I understand you to have pointed nut. The difficulty is this. Under Sub-section (3), it is the duty of the Board as soon as certain things have happened, namely, the scheme has been adopted and published by them, to carry it out at once, or within the area as the case may be. Then comes the proviso to which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) calls attention, which says that if there happens to be an appeal by a particular authorised undertaker, the scheme is not to be carried into effect as far as it affects him (the complainant),
but otherwise the scheme is to be carried into effect. We have passed from that, and now come to a later Clause, in which it is said that no scheme is to have any effect until both Houses of Parliament pass Resolutions in support of it. That is not a proviso to Sub-section (3), it is a contradiction of Sub-section (3). I submit that we cannot say it is the duty of the Board to carry the scheme into effect as soon as it has been adopted, and in a later proviso say they are not to carry any scheme into effect until long after—namely, after resolutions have been passed in the two Houses of Parliament. The two things would make nonsense of the Clause, and are mutually inconsistent, and my submission is that the Amendment is hopelessly out of order.

Mr. HERBERT: I think the learned Attorney-General has shown me exactly where my Amendment is verbally at fault, told how with a slight alteration it can be put in order. I think that as a lawyer he will agree with me that my Amendment would be in order, and that there would be no objection to it, if instead of the words "come into force" we were to insert words, following those at the beginning of Sub-section (3),
be carried out and given effect to.
We should then have a provision at the beginning of the Clause that after the scheme had been drafted and published it should be carried out and given effect to. Next we should get a proviso that it shall not be carried out and given effect to until something has happened. I beg to suggest, very respectfully, that that is not a form of drafting which the learned Attorney-General would find any difficulty in interpreting and carrying out.

Sir J. NALL: I would like to submit this point. Following Sub-section (3) is a proviso as to arbitration. If we had attempted to move this present Amendment before the provision as to arbitration, quite clearly, I should think, it would have been out of order. Obviously arbitration would have to take place before the scheme could be laid before Parliament, and if a provision as to laying the scheme before Parliament is to come into the Clause at all, clearly it ought to come after Sub-section (5), which, in itself, might deal with a scheme
to which some objection might arise. Therefore, I should have thought the words on the Order Paper were quite in order, but should have been numbered "Sub-section (6)," and that they would, in accordance with the common practice of the House, have formed a final Subsection to this Clause 4.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this conversation has confirmed me in my view that the Amendment is quite impossible at the stage at which we have arrived. It might have been possible before we dealt with Sub-section (3) and Subsection (4) to have made some such provision, perhaps, but we have passed the point at which it can be done It would be rather a consequential alteration to Sub-section (3), and, that not having been made, it is quite clear that we cannot put the words in here, and we must pass on to the next Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT: If I may be allowed to do so, I would ask that this Clause should he re-committed.

Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be recommitted at this stage—in the middle of a Bill.

Sir J. NALL: Would it not be in Order to move to re-commit either the whole Bill or any part of the Bill at the conclusion of the Report stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a possible procedure at the conclusion of the Report stage.

Mr. HERBERT: Do I understand that it will be open to inc, at the conclusion of the Report stage, apart from any question that may arise on other Clauses, to move that this particular Clause be re-committed?

Mr. SPEAKER: At or before the beginning of the Third Reading stage it is open to the hon. Member to move the re-committal.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
(6) In the event of a scheme being adopted under this Act as respects any area which comprises or is in whole or in part within the London and Home Counties Electricity District, and any provisions of such scheme being inconsistent with any provisions of any scheme referred to in the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, or in the London Electri-
city (No. 1) Act, 1925, or in the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925, the provisions of the scheme adopted under this Act shall prevail and be deemed to supersede any provisions with which they are so inconsistent of any scheme so referred to as aforesaid, and which have not been carried out at the date when the scheme adopted under this Act becomes operative.
This Amendment is submitted to the House as an important consideration in relation to the rights already established for the London company and municipalities under the two Acts passed in 1925. I apologise for the short notice given in regard to this manuscript Amendment, but I think the Government have already given this point consideration, and I hope they will be prepared to accept my Amendment or, at any rate, seine modification of it.

Mr. ATTLEE: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment.. This is a very important proposal to be sprung upon us without hon. Members having had time to study it. It has been said that London was dealt with satisfactorily by No. 1 and No. 2 Electricity Acts but we are strongly opposed to those Acts, and everything which has occurred since those Acts were passed has tended to show that we were right. What we have seen lately has been an enormous increase in the profits of the London companies because they have capitalised their reserves, and in this way they are putting heavy burdens on the people of London in the future in regard to those areas. Now it is proposed that none of the limits under this national scheme, for which the London area as well as others will have to pay, is going to accrue to those areas which have been handed over to company groups. It is impossible without going carefully through those Acts and comparing them with this Bill to say at what points under this Bill its provisions will impinge upon or alter No. 1 or No. 2 Electricity Acts. This is a very sweeping Amendment and it would be unfair to London to make Londoners pay a further contribution under this Bill, while at the same time being deprived of the advantages accruing to other areas. In my opinion it would be disastrous to London if this Amendment were accepted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My understanding of this Amendment, which was only shown to me last night, and which the Ministry have not had
an opportunity of considering, is exactly the opposite of that of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). I understood that the object of the Amendment was to provide that, if there were a conflict between a scheme under this Act and under the Act of 1925, this Act should prevail—in other words, that London should be assured of coming in, and should not be kept out by reason of the Act of 1925. If that were so, the objections which the hon. Member has indicated would not, of course, exist. It is, however, obvious that this is a complicated Amendment, and one which should be considered. I cannot possibly accept it at such short notice. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend who has moved it, and also, if he will be good enough to see me, with the hon. Member for Limehouse; and if it should turn out that there is any need for an Amendment of this kind, it might, perhaps, be considered in another place. I rather hope that it will not be necessary, but if it should be necessary it could be met in that way. I do not think the House can be reasonably asked to accept the Amendment without a more complete understanding of it than is possible in the circumstances.

Mr. HANNON: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Existing selected stations.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out the word "the," and to insert instead thereof the word "a".
This is merely a drafting Amendment, for the purpose once more of changing the article.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next four Amendments on the Paper are, I think, consequential on proposals which have now fallen to the ground.

Sir J. NALL: I think that the first one ought to be considered, namely in page 6, line 15, to leave out the words
with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners.
This Amendment is not entirely concerned with the point that was discussed earlier on a new Clause. It was put
down with the intention of carrying out a change that was made in Clause 4. It does not by any means cover the scope of the matter in the way that the new Clause did.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that we have discussed several times the question of the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and that the louse decided against an alteration.

Sir J. NALL: I think that, if we could discuss shortly this Amendment, it would dispose of the other similar Amendment. The new Clause that was moved this afternoon related to certain specific duties which are at present carried out by the Commissioners in relation to other undertakings. The intention in putting down the present Amendment was to ensure that the Board would in fact be the supreme authority in this matter, and would not be subject to veto owing to the decision already taken in the Committee on Clause 4.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will move the Amendment.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out the words
with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners.
This Clause provides that the Board shall direct the manner in which selected stations shall be operated, and carry out such extensions to those stations as are required under the scheme. The concluding words of the first paragraph provide for the carrying out of such additional extensions, outside those provided for in the scheme, as the Board think necessary, but these can only be ordered by the Board with the approval of the Commissioners. I think I may say shortly that that entirely stultifies the arrangement made earlier in the proceedings on this Bill, that the Commissioners are to recommend to the Board what the Board should do, and that the Board, under the provisions of Clause 4, shall examine the scheme, which when confirmed, will ultimately have the force of law. If we do not leave out these words, the Commissioners could afterwards frustrate the Board's intentions by refusing to allow them to carry out the provisions of their scheme for which they may have authority under the original recom-
mendation of the Commissioners. If the words are left in we shall have this rather extraordinary situation that, under the present proposals of Clause 4, the Commissioners hand the scheme to the Board, who may then revise it before they adopt it. The Commissioners, finding that their recommendations have been revised by the Board, may then veto the Board's own opinion by refusing to give their approval, and therefore these words ought to be left out.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have here a particularly Gilbertian situation. The Commissioners send the scheme to the Board, who may modify it, and afterwards, when they come to put it into effect, they can only do it with the approval of the Commissioners. It seems to me ridiculous. I do not know why it should be. I have no desire to say that one authority is better than the other, but there should be some authority, once you have established them, who can carry out their own scheme, and if this is to be adjudged upon by someone, it should be some superior authority and not an authority in conflict with the authority which itself framed the scheme which they are offering. I hope my right hon. Friend realises the Gilbertian situation in which we shall find ourselves if we leave this in.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend suggests that I should perhaps realise the Gilbertian situation we, are in because the Electricity Commissioners were to prepare the scheme, the Board were to modify it, and the Electricity Commissioners could veto it if these words were left in, but he has wholly failed to understand to what the words apply. The words "with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners" relate not to the original scheme, but to additional extensions and alterations made from time to time by direction. What happens with regard to the scheme itself is dealt with in Section 18. What we are dealing with now is the question of additional extensions and alterations which may from time to time be directed after the scheme has been put into operation, and inasmuch as Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, makes the Electricity Commissioners the authority whose consent has to be given for any ex-
tensions or alterations it is desirable to make it clear that that position stands good even after this Bill has come into operation. Unless one has any suspicion or dislike of the Electricity Commissioners, which I have myself disclaimed, and which, I understand, those responsible for the Amendment are equally anxious to disclaim, I cannot understand why we should not make clear that the Electricity Commissioners have exactly the same power with regard to these alterations and extensions as has already been given by Parliament under the Act of 1919.

Mr. HERBERT: I suggest that we really are in some very considerable practical difficulty. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say this is a matter where the approval of the Electricity Commissioners is only required for the purposes which are particularly mentioned in this Sub-section, but surely, if the Board is to be the body which is to operate the scheme in these matters dealt with in this Sub-section, it is really an integral part of the business. The Attorney-General has given us, I understand, a promise to amend Clause 18. If Clause 18 is to be amended in the way suggested, and if it is to be the ease that the Board are to be the final authorities who are to carry out this scheme when it has been fully completed, surely it is absurd for them to be hampered by having to obtain the approval of the Electricity Commissioners to some one particular item which, undoubtedly, is an integral part of the work which they have to do.
I do not for one moment desire to be obstructive in regard to this matter. All that I want to do is to point out that if the Attorney-General does what he has told us he intends to do in regard to Clause 18, it is perfectly obvious that if that Clause is to be amended in the way suggested, Clause 5 will be a very considerable difficulty if we leave it in its present form. I should have thought that it would have been very much easier if these words were left out. I foresee, from what the Attorney-General has already promised, that, after we have dealt with this Bill on Report stage, if it is not re-committed in this House, it will require a large amount of work to be expended upon it in another place, in
order to make it a workable Act of Parliament. Surely, we might just as well do what we can to lessen that task and leave out these wards now, with regard to which I cannot see any argument in their favour, in order to simplify the position when we come to Clause 18. I hope the Attorney-General, in these circumstances, may think that in the interests of getting through a workable Act it might be just as well to leave out these words now, unless he attaches very great importance to them. At the present time I do not see that he has given us any arguments which show that there is any value to be attached to the words. In these circumstances, I hope he will agree to leave them out.

Mr. ATTLEE: I can never quite understand the attitude taken up by hon. Members opposite. At one time they are very strong on the point that we must have tribunals of arbitration, every possible appeal, every possible protection for people who are going to be ruthlessly steam-rollered by this new autocratic body which is being set up under the Bill. At other times they want to sweep away any protection for the authorised undertakers. I understand that the particular point now at issue is that in future Years where the Board demand certain additional extensions arid alterations it shall be with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners. Despite the numerous efforts by hon. Members opposite to abolish them, the Electricity Commissioners, they still remain in existence, and we on this side believe that it is necessary to have a supreme body controlling the industry, apart from the operating body, the Board. That is why I understand the approval of the Electricity Commissioners will he necessary before the Board requires additional extensions and alterations to be imposed on the authorised undertakers. I agree that there is something Gilbertian in this Bill, but that Gilbertian situation has very largely been caused by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) and his friends. They managed under Clause 4 to so arrange that the Electricity Commissioners were to be under the Board. The Gilbertian situation is that the Electricity Commissioners are practically the technical advisers of the Board up to Clause 4. By Clause 5 they come into their own again as a semi-judicial
body, and, therefore, they are again in e position to be appealed to, and throughout the Bill they are in the position of being the deciding body on technical points. Therefore, we want the approval of the Electricity Commissioners kept in the Bill here in order to give authorised undertakings some protection against the Board.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir J. NALL:
In page 6, line 21, to leave out from the word 'the' to the word 'and,' in line 24, and to insert instead thereof the words tribunal of appeal by this Act constituted.'
In line 24, to leave out the word 'arbitrator,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'tribunal,'
In line 25, to leave out the words 'he thinks,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'they think.'

Mr. SPEAKER: These are all consequential on an Amendment which has already been disposed of.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
If the arbitrator decides that any directions of the Board requiring additional extensions or alterations of any such station impose on the owners thereof an unreasonable financial burden, such directions shall become null and void.
It has been decided that the main functions of the arbitrators in this case is to decide on the financial basis. It is quite consistent with that that we should now add this Amendment. If the arbitrator is satisfied, in relation to this particular Clause that it will impose an unreasonable burden on the owners, it seems only reasonable that he should be able to annul the proposal. I do not know whether there is any objection to it. It is only in manuscript, but I hope the Attorney-General will be able to accept it.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I had not heard the Amendment until it was read out by the lion, and gallant Member, and, therefore, I have not been able to give it that careful consideration I should like to have given it. I understand, after
hearing it read, that what it suggests is in effect already in the Bill. The Bill provides that the Board has to make arrangements for such additional extensions and alterations as they may direct, but if in Clause 9 any direction requires such additional extension or alterations as to impose on owners an unreasonable burden, they can appeal. Obviously, the arbitrator would have power to do a variety of things. He could not only declare them null and void, he could modify them, he could decide they should not become effective unless certain modifications were made, or he could order a certain pecuniary recompense to be given. He can say, "These are unreasonable additions and extensions; I refuse to sanction them," and if he took that course they are not binding. The only effect of the Amendment appears to me to limit the powers of the arbitrator, whereas if the Bill is left as it is he can disallow or modify them.

Sir J. NALL: By leave of the House may I just ask the Attorney-General this? Clause 5, although it gives the right of appeal to an arbiter, does not say what the arbiter may do.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Obviously therefore what he may do is to decide upon the appeal.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it clear under this Clause exactly what the arbiter's powers should be? Should not something be put in stating that the arbiter has the powers of an arbiter under the Board of Trade? I do not agree with what has been pat forward by the hon. Member opposite. I think something is required to say what the arbiter's powers shall be and how far he should go.

Mr. HERBERT: I thnk there is a very great deal in this request. The Bill reads:
If the owners of any such station consider that any directions of the Board … impose upon them an unreasonable financial burden, the matter shall, if they so require, be referred to the arbitration of a barrister.
The barrister will hold an arbitration. What is he to do? Suppose he does decide that there is imposed upon these owners an unreasonable financial burden, what is to happen? I think this is a case where the Clause as it stands is obviously incomplete. I invite the Attorney-General
to tell us. Suppose he was appointed arbitrator in this case and he found that the action did impose on the owners an unreasonable financial burden, what would he then do? What would be his award?

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The answer to the question is, if I were arbiter, I should do one of two or, possibly, three things. First I might disallow the order or direction altogether on the ground that the extensions or alterations were unreasonable. Secondly. I might say they would be disallowed unless modified to au extent I mentioned, and thirdly, I might be able to say there must be some compensation paid by the board. Anyhow, I could do the first two things.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), and other Amendments—in page 6, line 31, to leave out from the word "order" to the word "acquired" in line 34—I cannot make out the possible form. The Clause reads in this way: That
if the owners of any such station are unwilling to enter into or fail to carry out any such arrangements to the satisfaction of the Board, the Minister of Transport may by Order empower any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board, or, failing such authorised undertakers, company, or person, the Board, to acquire the generating station at a price to be determined.
There is nothing in this Bill giving a Minister of Transport any machinery or money to acquire any of those things. The whole Bill is based on other authorities acquiring them. Therefore. I am afraid that Amendment will not stand.

Mr. HARDIE: That is the reason for the Amendment. We want to have the reverse of what is the Bi11. That is why we are moving Amendments. We want exactly what you are saying is not in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid it would not have that effect without a great deal of supplementary machinery.

Mr. HARDIE: We will bring that in after.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House must see the proposal as a whole before it makes up its mind on the merits.

Mr. HARDIE: If we get sufficient support for this proposal, the consequence will be that everything else will follow that finding. The Amendment is related to other Amendments on the Paper. It seeks to make an alteration in the Bill, but not one which interferes with any basic principle at all.

Colonel ASHLEY: There is no provision in the Bill for any money with which the Minister of Transport can acquire anything, and, therefore, the Amendment would impose a charge and is out of order.

Mr. HARDIE: The Minister of Transport is going to empower the Board by a certain sum of money, part of which is already allotted, to the extent of £33,500,000. By the Government passing that they are in the position of acting on behalf of the Minister of Transport—using the guarantee of the Government to purchase the things necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the. Bill. That being the case. I hold that the Amendment is perfectly in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that is not so under our Rules. You cannot propose anything which involves an extra charge on the Exchequer or the rates on the Report stage of a Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: The purpose of the Amendment is that the Minister of Transport should make an Order to acquire a generating station at a price to be determined. The Board cannot make an Order. It is necessary that the Minister of Transport should make the Order, vesting the station in the Board, and the Board be provided with funds by this Bill for acquiring the station.

Mr. HERBERT: The extraordinary explanation of the hon. 'Gentleman who has just spoken is only justified if the Amendment on the Paper is riot moved or is not carried. It is only if the words proposed to be left out remain in the Clause that the Board "acquires." The Minister of Transport may by Order "acquire," but the Minister of Transport has no funds with which to do it. As far as I understand the English language, the words "the Minister of Transport
may acquire," do not mean that the Minister of Transport may vest in the Board.

Mr. ATTLEE: If the hon. Gentleman will read further down to line 37 he will see where the question of vesting the generating station in the Board comes in.

Mr. HERBERT: Yes, on payment of the price.

Mr. ATTLEE: By the Board.

Mr. HERBERT: No, it does not say so. Presumably it is to be paid by the person who acquires.

Mr. HARDIE: This Bill could not proceed in Committee until a certain financial provision, namely, £33,500,000, had been made by this House. That money was not given to the Board and was not given to the Commisioners. It was voted by the Government to be handed to the Minister of Transport. Because that took place, it seems to me to establish the financial relation between the Government and the function of the Commissioners under the Bill. If we cannot make Amendments dealing with the money already passed by this House for the purpose of carrying out this Bill, then it would seem to me that the Rules of the House preclude an ordinary Amendment which seeks in the ordinary course to make a logical condition under which the Bill might proceed.

It being Eleven of the Clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-Morrow.

FACTORIES (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS REGULATIONS, 1926.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move,
That a humble Address be submitted to His Majesty praying that the Contributory Pensions (Modification of Old Age Pensions) Regulations, 1926, dated 26th July. 1926, be annulled.
I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but it is imperative that we
should call the attention of the House to the Regulations issued by the Ministry under the Pensions Act of 1925. In order to explain the position I must refer to the fact that in 1925 we passed the Act under which these Regulations are issued. We do not dispute the Ministry's power to issue these Regulations because such power is given to the Ministry under Sections 14 and 15 of that Act. We want, however, to challenge the Ministry's action in so far as the contents of the Regulations is concerned. We are a little surprised at the action of the Ministry in this connection. What the Regulations purport to do—in very technical language—is to reduce the old age pensions of certain persons who come within the scheme, from 10s. in some cases, down to 1s. per week. The House will appreciate the importance of what I am about to say when I inform them that actually under these Regulations a number of persons ac 65 years of age will receive pensions amounting to only 1s. per week. We had two documents submitted to us when the Bill of 1925 was before Parliament. The Memorandum explaining the Bill included these words:
If the holder of an exemption certificate wishes to be insured for an old age pension he must surrender his exemption certificate, and he will then be insured for health insurance and for widows' and ophans' and old age pensions.
There is not a single word in that official memorandum issued then by the Ministry as to what is now transpiring under these Regulations. When we turn to a more important document, the Government Actuary's Report then issued, this is all we get:
There is a small class of persons, estimated to number about 40,000, who hold certificates of exemption under the National Health Insurance system. Persons of this class are found to a large extent to be provided for in old age, and are accordingly dealt with in the Bill in practically the same way as those who are in excepted employment.
The claim that we make is this, that an exempted person under this scheme who surrenders his certificate of exemption is penalised unduly, and we would like the Minister to tell us why this class of person who falls into exactly the same category as others will receive a less amount of old age pension than those who are paying the same rate of contribution. To at least about 40,000
insured persons the Regulation appears to be very harsh. Are these Regulations based on any actuarial calculations, and what in fact is there to differentiate between individuals who come under the Regulations and other classes? I have tried to make myself familiar with all these Regulations, with the Actuary's report and with the Memorandum issued on the Bill when it was before the House, and I cannot remember any explanation given at any time or any hint given by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary nor by the Minister of Health, as to what was going to be done under Sections 14 and 15. When I saw the Regulation itself I was simply astonished as to the figures contained in it. I think I have said enough to indicate that some of us are very apprehensive that if this Regulations comes into force, a number of persons will have been deceived under this Measure; and I trust the Minister will be able to remove complaints which I feel sure he knows exist in this connection.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I beg to second the Motion.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am glad to take this opportunity of giving a few words of explanation of this Regulation, not only for the benefit of the House but for a number of people who, I know, are interested in it up and down the country. The House may remember that when the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pension Act was passed in 1925 there was special consideration given to two classes of people—those called exempt persons who came under Section 14 of the, Act, and those concerned in certain classes of excepted employment, who come under Section 15 of the Act. Those Sections foreshadowed, for reasons which I hope to justify, modifications and curtailments of the ordinary rights so far as old age pensions are concerned. The hon. Member was wrong in saying that no statement was made concerning this matter to the House, because on the 13th July, in Committee, in response to a question put to me, I foreshadowed, for what I believed were good and sufficient reasons, that there would have to be some modification for a very small number of people, and I expressly
stated that we might have to make some sort of Regulation such as that which is now being discussed.
All these people who are concerned in this Regulation are segregated from the main body of persons under the pensions scheme by reason of the fact that they are not required to be insured for old age pensions because they possess or are entitled to benefits corresponding to the old age pension already conferred. As far as exempt persons are concerned, they hold their certificates of exemption usually on the ground that they possess certain private means. Persons who are in the other class, namely, that of excepted employment as in the case of the Civil Service and employment under local authorities, are specially exempted from this particular part of the scheme because in the great majority of cases they receive an equivalent benefit to that which they would receive under the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Act itself. These two classes of person are specially treated and are receiving old age pensions equivalent to those mentioned in the State scheme. The reason why we are making in this Regulation special conditions so far as they are concerned is really in fairness to the other contributors under the scheme.
If such a Regulation were not made, there would be nothing to prevent a person exempt from the scheme by reason of private means, or otherwise, and thereby insured only at a reduced rate of contribution for widows and orphans' allowances, continuing to pay that until the age of, say, 60, and then surrendering his exemption certificate, so that for five years only would he pay the necessary contribution for the old age pension under the scheme. By that means, unless some sort of provision such as this were made, these people would get the old age pension for simply a contribution for five years while the rest of the community would have to pay on an average for the whole period of employment, which is generally reckoned at 45 years. Therefore, it is only fair and right that this Regulation should be made. The House will see that so far as the Regulations are concerned the pension is on a graduated scale, and if they will look at the Regulations they will find set out on page 3 a table by
which the payment is made and varies according to age—for example, a person of 45 to 47 receives a contributory old age pension of 9s. a week, and so it decreases as the age gets more because, of course, the contribution has been less. We have given a great deal of consideration to this particular proposal in order that no injustice should be done, and I asked when I heard that the hon. Member was going to raise this question, exactly what would be the ordinary payment made under an ordinary scheme by such a person. For 2d. a week from the age of 45 the Regulations give a pension of 9s. a week at the age of 65, but the equivalent of 2d. a week commencing at the age of 45 under ordinary circumstances and without State assistance would be a pension of only 1s. a week at the age of 65.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: All those consideration affect other people. What is there to differentiate between the treatment of those persons and other persons?

Sir K. WOOD: I thought I made that clear just now. Why this distinction is being made is this. If you take the position of exempt persons, they are exempt at the present time for the old age pension scheme on the ground that they have certain private means. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that an exempt person can at any time surrender his exemption certificate; and by that means come under the operation of this scheme as a full contributor. If he chooses to do it at a very late period in life, he can thereby secure an old age pension at a contribution which is utterly inappropriate to the benefit he is going to receive. Therefore, in order to do justice to the scheme and to the contributors, you are bound to make a certain limitation, and the limitation that is in fact made under these Regulations is really a very generous one to the people concerned. If, for instance, the hon. Gentleman takes the age of 50 which is mentioned, the Regulations give a pension of 7s. a week, whereas actually the actuarial equivalent of what he was paying would, if there were no State contribution at all be only 7½,d.
Therefore, I do not think anyone can justly complain of these Regulations at the present time. These Regulations
were issued in their draft form some time ago, and the hon. Member and others did make representation to us as to the position of certain people, but since the final Regulations have been made neither I, personally, nor, I think, my Department has had any objection. I hope, after the explanation I have given to my hon. Friend, he will be satisfied in connection with this scheme, that in this particular matter we have endeavoured to be fair both to the main body of contributors and the people who come in under very exceptional circumstances. You have got to hold a fair balance between the two, and I think that this has been accomplished. There is very good evidence of the very fair arrangements which have been made as far as the widows' pensions are concerned, that, quite the opposite to national insurance, where a very few voluntary contributors came in, one of the most interesting features of the widows' and orphans' scheme at the present moment is the number of people who want, voluntarily to insure under it. If we were proposing or suggesting unfair terms, it is obvious that people would not desire to come under the scheme as they are doing at the present time. Under these Regulations anyone who comes in, even late in life, is receiving very valuable benefits, which they would receive under no private scheme, as the hon. Member knows. I do not think he need hesitate in advising his friends, many of whom, as I know, desire to obtain the benefit of the voluntary side of this scheme, to come in under these Regulations which are really a very good bargain in many respects for people who desire to obtain voluntary insurance. I hope this will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, may I say that although at the present moment I think we are administering over 160,000 pensions to widows, and we are now making provision for the first time in this country, for no less than 263,000 orphan children, the scheme has been operating with great smoothness. We have been endeavouring to avoid red tape, and we have had the satisfaction of seeing few questions put down concerning the administration of the scheme. It is surprising, in view of the great amount of
administrative machinery to be put into operation, and the very large number of people already under the scheme, that it has worked so fairly and so smoothly. I do not think any one need hesitate to take advantage of the proposals now being put forward. They will be of benefit to the people concerned and also equally fair to the other contributors.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'clock.